Hello Chuck! No relation to the Chuck Darwin in Jim Bell's book? :-)
On Thu, 14 Mar 1996 12:25:03 -0600 you wrote to Bill Hamilton:
[...]
BH>Certainly I agree that the Bible is not intended to be a science
>text. I am not claiming that "scientific 'details'" contained in the
>Bible are unreliable. Rather I am claiming that statements in the
>Bible that are sometimes considered "scientific 'details'" are not
>intended to be understood as "scientific 'details'". Rather they are
>the kinds of statements an observer would use to communicate what he
>saw in a way that will be readily understood by his
>listeners/readers. For example, is Joshua 10 truly teaching that the
>sun and moon orbit the earth? That's the implication if we take
>every use of an observer expression to teach a fact.
>
>Or in Matt 16:2 and 3 is Jesus really teaching that a red sky in the
>morning _always_ means stormy weather, while a red sky in the evening
>_always_ means good weather? I hope not, because I have seen nice
>days follow red sunrises. In both cases, expressions that are not
>(always) literally true are used to convey meanings that will be
>readily understood by listeners. The question we have to ask when
>reading any kind of literature is, "What is the author intending to
>communicate?" If we try to extract something other than what the
>author intends to communicate, we are likely _not_ to extract
>anything meaningful.
Good point Bill. Extreme literalists would presumablky have to
maintain that Jesus is giving an infallible statement on meteorology?
CW>Thanks for your response, Bill. I don't think we really have a
>disagreement here....
>
>In interpreting "scientific details" it appears to me that there are at
>least three possibilities for any text: (a) figurative language (i.e.,
>Psalm 98:8); (b) phenomenal language (your example of Matt 16:2,3 or Eph
>4:26); or (c) plain statements of historical fact (Gen 9:17-23, *I think*).
>I would take Joshua 10 to be possibly a combination of (b) and (c).
I suggest there is no distinction between (b) and (c) and possibly
even between (a) , (b) and (c). But considering (b) "phenomenal" and
(c) "historical", isn't all externally acquire human knowledge
"phenomenal"? Even Gn 9:19 "These are the three sons of Noah: and of
them was the whole earth overspread" cannot be historical in an ideal
absolute sense because the human author's concept of "the whole earth"
was necessarily time and culture-bound. Ramm says of the universal
flood interpretation
"...It cannot demonstrate that totality of language necessitates a
universal flood. Fifteen minutes with a Bible concordance will reveal
many instances in which universality of language is used but only a
partial quantity is meant. All does not mean every last one in all of
its usages. Psa. 22:17 reads: "I may tell all my bones," and hardly
means that every single bone of the skeleton stood out prominently.
John 4:39 cannot mean that Jesus completely recited the woman's
biography. Matt. 3:5 cannot mean that every single individual from
Judea and Jordan came to John the Baptist. There are cases where all
means all, and every means every, but the context tells us where this
is intended. Thus, special reference may be made to Paul's statement
in Romans about the universality of sin, yet even that "all" excludes
Jesus Christ.
The universality of the flood simply means the universality of the
experience of the man who reported it. When God tells the Israelites
He will put the fear of them upon the people under the whole heaven,
it refers to all the peoples known to the Israelites (Deut. 2:25).
When Gen. 41:57 states that all countries came to Egypt to buy grain,
it can only mean all peoples known to the Egyptians. Ahab certainly
did not look for Elijah in every country of the earth even though the
text says he looked for Elijah so thoroughly that he skipped no nation
or kingdom (1 Kings 18:10). From the vantage point of the observer of
the flood all mountains were covered, and all flesh died. " (Ramm B.
"The Christian View of Science and Scripture", Paternoster:
London, 1955, p164).
CW>I certainly agree that the author's intention is paramount, but can
>we always know? This uncertainty seems to me to be at the heart of
>all the debate about how to interpret Gen 1-9, and I certainly don't
>have all the answers. I use the rule of thumb "when in doubt, use
>(c)" - it seems to me to give God the benefit of the doubt. I think
>overuse of (b) - phenomenal language, or "author's viewpoint," is
>dangerous, for example, what if we applied it to eyewitness accounts
>of the resurrection?
I suggest that we can "always know" that in regards to reporting
externally aquired information, the author is *always* using
phenomenal language, or his "author's viewpoint", even in respect of
"eyewitness accounts of the resurrection". Calvin, in his commentary
on Genesis, says of Gn 1:6. "Let there be a firmament":
"For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here
treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn
astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere." (Calvin
J., "A Commentary on Genesis", Banner of Truth: London, 1965,
pp78-79)
The cosmic significance and theological import of scripture events was
no doubt revealed and illuminated by the Spirit to the Biblical
writers, but what they saw and heard was with the same type of eyes
and ears that you and I have.
This in fact gives the Biblical accounts a certain timelessness,
because the Biblical writers just wrote what they saw and heard. The
Biblical eyewitness account of the Ascension:
"After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes,
and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking
intently up into the sky as he was going..." (Acts 1:9-10)
will always be understood, even if the disciples (as it has been
alleged) believed in a three-decker universe with hell underneath, the
earth in the middle, and heaven above.
God bless.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------