You wrote:
> I hope to I can show you that we agree alot more than you think.
Thanks for the thorough response, but somehow I still fail to see
how your argument stands. Perhaps I have a fundamentally different
(excuse the pun) view of interpreting Scripture that keeps me from
agreeing with your point.
Maybe I can at least learn a few things, even if I don't come to your
conclusion about the imposition of contemporary science on Biblical
authorship in Heb 11:11. Perhaps I can also point out where we don't
agree. Of course maybe I will get lucky and convince you to take a
different view.
> I will send you the post that began this discussion on Sarah.
I still have it (12/4/95 with Russ Maatman, right?). I just disagreed
with Heb 11:11 being ``"a wrong idea" that got into the Text'' due to
``the state of the [of] science in the first century.''
***
First a tangent:
> But briefly, my point was to underline that the Scripture's view of
> reproductive science changed between Gen 11: 30 (PREFORMATISM THEORY) to
So how exactly does preformatism come out of Gen 11:30? What is the
hebrew expression that leads to this conclusion?
Also, are you saying that Gen 11:30 and Heb 11:11 refer to the same
situation? I think they don't. Sarah was barren. But the emphasis of
Heb 11:11 is that she became unbarren when she should have been barren
due to her age. If her original barrenness was biological it could
have been due to a tilted uterus, or disease-scarred falliopian tubes.
Perhaps the author of Hebrews was more accurate than he ever intended
to be, in that he gives a specific biological reason for the later
conception.
***
> In saying this, I was trying show that
> when the Holy Spirit inspired the Biblical writers, it was within their
> intellectual horizon--specifically, the writers were allowed to make
> statements about nature (ie, scientific statements) that was consistent
> with the science of their day.
This is where I think we *disagree* alot more than you think. The
examples you give were not writers making statements about nature. Heb
11:11 is making a statement about the common sense state of things in
the most appropriate language of the day. If the details of what
is said are analyzed (as you have done), indeed it appears to suggest
something scientifically inaccurate, but that is an aspect of language,
not science.
The problem *is* language. I read more physics than biology, and it is
very common to find physicists using language which is inaccurate IF
TAKEN LITERALLY. However it is still the best language to use, because
the inaccuracies are not important, and use of accurate language would
detract from the main point. Nobody accuses anybody of substantive
error when they do this.
(Einstein's statement about `god not playing dice' is sort of an example
of this, but I am really thinking about language that implies action at
a distance, the existence of a metaphorical ether, and other concepts that
are literally inaccurate, but extremely convenient.)
Our difference seems to be that you think the `science' is important,
whereas I think that the issue in Heb 11:11 is `language'.
If *all* you were saying is that the Scripture is written in language
that is not always literally accurate, then we *would* agree, because
I believe that much of language works by being evocative rather than
literal (e.g. this why AI failed as a discipline and why the potential
for a `theory of everything' is so aesthically pleasing to those who
dislike a subjective universe).
However, the limitations of language do not imply substantive error,
so I expect this is *not* all that you are saying.
> The double seed theory makes no allowance that the "emission" of an egg
> is only in the mid-cycle of a woman cycle.
Thanks. Now I understand why the double seed theory is in error, but I
think you are really splitting hairs here. So the author of Hebrews
used language which might be taken by his contemporaries to mean that
Sarah had received the ability to ovulate during intercourse, yet the
apparent reality is that she received the ability to ovulate mid-cycle.
But the error is in *their* presumption about ovulation (i.e. female
ejaculation) rather than in the language itself.
(BTW, I am not really a fundamentalist, or else I might ask you to disprove
that she received the unusual ability to ovulate during intercourse!)
I know you want to be able to say that the author was making false
scientific statements, and I think there may well be false scientific
statements in the Bible... but I don't think this is one.
I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusions you want to draw about
the influence of contemporary science on the inspiration of Scripture.
However I do think you should find a better example on which to base
the argument.
A good example doesn't come to my mind, but I would expect that the best
types of examples would be where somebody is trying to explain how or why
something happens (in the natural causative sense). To be useful
such an example would have to be more than just quoting somebody, but
an actual statement of Scripture itself. For some reason these types
of statements are rare in the Bible.
> Firstly, the term is a technical term for ejaculation. Secondly, it
> cannot be used for ovulation because ovulation was not discovered till
> very late.
You seem to be conceding that there was no better term for ovulation, yet
you want to impute substantive error.
If you could just rewrite Heb 11:11 to *not* have what you consider to
be substantive error, then maybe that would go a *very* long way to
demonstrating that Heb 11:11 is indeed an example useful for your argument.
If you can do this, please do, but I suspect that you cannot because
the expression used is indeed pretty reasonable given the language
available.
At this point I think we should be in agreement, because I think you
should concede that the issue is language, not science. The
`substantive error' you identify is intrinsic in the limitations of
language. Heb 11:11 is *not* an example of an erroneous scientific
statement. At worst it is a statement that neglected to correct erroneous
science.
> You are committing eisegesis by introducing to an ancient
> text an intellectual category foreign to the writer.
BTW, I would tend to think that *you* are the one insisting on
eisegesis, because *you* require the author of Hebrews to speak in
intellectual categories not available to him.... but I really cannot
suggest this, because I don't actually know what `eisegesis' means.
--DaveP.S. something I found ironic about what the Scripture recordsabout Sarah's barrenness is the reason given for her laughterin Gen 18:12. Given what is said in Gen 25:1-2, it seems thatwe have been given a curious insight into their domestic foibles.