From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Fri Oct 10 2003 - 19:28:44 EDT
allenroy wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> > You're right that all reported data involves some degree of interpretation. But
> > you're wrong in thinking that the Bible can be read without interpretation. You
> > apparently think that you can "start with the Bible" as raw data, thus running afoul of
> > the same error whcih you note in connection with the data of the natural sciences.
>
> You are correct, the Bible does require interpretation. And that interpretation comes by letting the Bible be it's
> own interpreter under the direction of the Holy Spirit. In this was, people of all ages can actually hold the same
> beliefs, because it is the same Bible and the same Holy Spirit who teaches everyone. One is not free to interpret
> the Bible as one sees fit. We do not fit it into our life or personal beliefs, we fit our life to it. We must
> submit the the Holy Spirit, or we may believe error. Naturalism does not hold any sway over the Bible.
>
> You want to discuss specifics?
Sure, but first a generality. Naturalism does not hold sway over the Bible, but
the Bible speaks about the real world and when it does, we often have to look at the
world in order to understand what the Bible is talking about. Biblical geography is a
case in point. We find out what biblical references to "Jerusalem," "Egypt,"
"Damascus," "Nazareth," "the Jordan," "the great sea" &c are talking about, not simply
by reading the Bible, but by studying geography, archaology, &c. These particular
sciences (like all "secular" disciplines) does not have a magisterial role in theology
(which is what you're rejecting) but a _necessary_ ministerial one.
Now for a specific, Genesis 1 & 2. I start with the belief - as you do - that
these texts are true & authoritative. But in what ways are they true and
authoritative?
We might consider these as historical accounts - or we might not. It is not
clear a priori which we should choose. (& no, the fact Ex.20:11, Mk.10:6-8 & other
verses may seem to refer to them as historical doesn't settle the question. I say "may
seem" advisedly because those texts themselves must be interpreted.)
OK, Gen.1 & 2 (or 1:1-2:4a & 2:4b-25 to be more precise) could be historical
narratives or not. But a careful reading of them _as_ historical narratives shows that
they don't agree. The order of creation of living things (plants, non-human animals,
humans, male & female humans in one case & male human, plants, non-human animals, female
human in the other) is one indication of that.
Allen, I know that your inclination right now is to disagree with my last 2
statements & argue that the accounts can be harmonized. But please try to resist that
inclination & suspend disbelief for a bit. If you don't, you won't be able to
appreciate the argument I'm presenting.
Since these texts are true, they can't both be accounts of historical events.
& that being the case, it might be that neither is an account of historical events. We
have reached that conclusion from study of the texts themselves, from evidence internal
to scripture.
Now when we look at the world, we see a lot of indications (radioisotope
abundances &c) that the earth is billions of years old rather than the few thousand that
treatment of Genesis as strict history would suggest. Again, your inclination will to
disagree. & again I have to ask you to accept this temporarily for the sake of the
argument.
There are different ways we can interpret the biblical texts - roughly, in YE or
OE ways. The internal evidence (comparison of Gen. 1 & 2) has already given us some
reason to believe that the Bible doesn't have to be interpreted in a way that requires
YE. External evidence - from science - points to OE. Therefore interpreting both
Genesis and the scientific data in a way consistent with OE is the best choice.
Note that this does not mean giving science based on MN a magisterial role in
theology. OTOH, we have to recognize that we haven't reached the conclusion that the
earth is old simply from studying scripture. That study may open the possibility, but
it is only the study of the world itself that tells us that that's the best option.
Of course there is still a lot that has to be dealt with. E.g., how does one
interpret Ex.20:11 or Mk.10:6-8? But I hope you get the general idea.
Shalom,
George
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 10 2003 - 19:30:35 EDT