From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sun Mar 23 2003 - 16:53:45 EST
The Comforter the Holy Spirit leads us into alltruth we need about God and
the gospel, not about science.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "allenroy" <allenroy@peoplepc.com>
To: <pruest@mysunrise.ch>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: YEC and interpretations (was: Re: asa-digest V1 #3214)
>
>
> Peter Ruest wrote:
>
> >I am in the middle of such a discussion with a young-earth creationist
> >(who has published a book-long theological defense of the young-earth
> >creationist postulate).
> >
> >The crucial point he doesn't seem to check is that there is a close
> >parallel between the theological treatment of the Bible and the
> >scientific treatment of nature (or creation). We have two "books" of
> >God, his Word (in the Bible), and his work (in creation). The biblical
> >text (originals) is data, and the creation is data. But theology is
> >interpretation, and science is interpretation. Data are given - they
> >are, in a sense, God's truth, which is absolutely reliable (although we
> >are not able to see all of it directly, both with the biblical originals
> >and with the realities of creation). We cannot change the data, we can
> >at most falsify or obscure it. But any interpretation, be it of biblical
> >texts or of observations in nature, are the work of fallible humans. Its
> >reliability has certain probabilities, which range from 0 to somewhere
> >below 100%. Any interpretations must be subject to revision if
> >necessary. Any pitting of "the Bible" against "science" is therefore a
> >confusion of categories, and therefore mistaken.
> >
> I and most YECs that I know would pretty much agree with this. Except
> that we have supernatural help in understanding (or interpreting) the
> Bible in the form of the promised "Comforter" who Jesus sent to"lead us
> into all truth." As long as we allow the Holy Spirit to lead us, then
> we can arrive at what God means for us to understand from the Bible.
> With that in mind, that is why one should never open the Bible unless
> we first ask God the Spirit to guide and lead our thoughts.
>
> As for interpreting the data from the natural world, the difference
> between the typical YEC and Evolutionists of all types, is the
> foundational assumptions within which scientific study is done. YECs
> typically start with the stated Biblical points of a creation of the
> Biosphere within a week of 7 planet rotations some 6000 +/- years ago
> and a global cataclysm (typically called Creationism). The typical
> Evolutionist starts with Ontological Naturalism (or its heir
> Methodological Naturalism). The scientific method can be done equally
> well within either viewpoint. When dealing with the here and now, both
> philosophies provide equivalent results. It is when dealing with the
> past that the interpretations of scientific data within the paradigms
> diverge. The real issue is not that one or the other side does not
> understand science or is unable to do proper science. Rather, the real
> issue, the real conflict, is found in the foundational assumptions. Can
> Creationism and Ontological Naturalism be harmonized or are they
> incompatible. Can Creationism and Methodological Naturalism be
> harmonized or are they also incompatible. The typical YEC believe that
> the philosophical differences between Creationism and Naturalism (of
> either form) are completely incompatible. I believe that the typical
> Theistic Evolutionists (and others of similar beliefs) believe that
> Creationism and Natrualism can be harmonized. One can read about such
> attempts at harmonizing on many web pages provided by many members of
> this group. The YECs point out however, that ALL such harmonizing
> involves starting with Naturalism (either form) and interpreting the
> Bible within it. Some might argue that Methodological Naturalism is an
> attempt to harmonize Ontological Naturalism through Biblical eyes.
> However, most YECs will argue that it modifing Ontological Naturalism
> inot Methodological Naturlaism doesn't go far enough and besides that,
> it is completely unnecessary to use any form of Naturalism. All the
> necessary assumptions requried to conduct the scientific method are
> found within Creationism.
>
> >There is no "literal interpretation" of the Bible which would be immune
> >from human fallibility. I believe we have to take the (original)
> >biblical text "literally", in the sense of respecting the way the divine
> >Author led the human authors to formulate and later copyists to transmit
> >it: we must not change any of it. But we cannot evade interpreting it -
> >any reading of it automatically is an interpretation, which has to be
> >evaluated. So I would not discuss whether Gen.1-11 has to be taken
> >"literally" or not. The question is how these words are meant to be
> >interpreted. And this cannot be other than "theory-laden", just as with
> >scientific interpretations. There is no priority of the interpretations
> >of one type of data (biblical text) over those of another type of data
> >(creation). There only is priority of God's data (in the Bible and in
> >creation) over its interpretation (in both domains).
> >
> In the discussion on "literal" inerpretation of the Bible, many YECs
> find that the term "literal" has been interpreted by critics and skeptic
> to mean that every single word of the Bible is to be taken absolutly
> literal. This is not how most YECs use the term "literal." (but I'm
> sure you can find some who do.) Because the inaccurate definition used
> by the critics is so pervasive in society now, many YECs are now
> beginning to use the term "straight forward reading" rather than
> "literal reading," to describe the common sense method they use to read
> the Bible. Just as we all have learned to communicate, read and write
> using an assortmen of obvious literary methods, the same approach is
> applied to the Bible. It is recognized that the Bible is written in
> obvious literary structures such as prose, poety, prophetic symbolisms,
> metaphores, idoms, etc. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or
> theologian with advanced degrees to get the obvious messages from the
Bible.
>
> I have found that when reading Genesis 1:11 nearly everyone agrees that
> if it is read in a straight forward manner then the interpretation of
> the texts would likely be very similar to the typical YEC
> interpretation. However, when faced with the interpretation of natural
> world through Ontological or Methodological Naturalism which simply does
> not fit the straight forward interpretation of Genesis, that one must
> make some difficult choices. Can one "intellectually" throw out the
> "Science" of Methodological Naturalism? Does one have to make "Faith"
> decision and shut your eyes to 'science?' I believe that there is
> another option, do you science within the philosophical foundation of
> Creationism rather than any form of Naturalism.
>
> Allen
>
> >
> --
> "I have been shown that, without Bible history, geology can prove nothing.
Relics found
> in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many
respects from the
> present. But the time of their existence, and how long a period these
things have been in
> the earth, are only to be understood by Bible history. It may be innocent
to conjecture
> beyond Bible history, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts
found in the sacred
> Scriptures. But when men leave the word of God in regard to the history of
creation, and
> seek to account for God's creative works upon natural principles, they are
upon a
> boundless ocean of uncertainty. Just how God accomplished the work of
creation in six
> literal days, he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are
just as
> incomprehensible as his existence." Ellen Gould Harmon White, 1864
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 16:58:13 EST