RE: Examples of God accommodating ancient "science" in the Bible?

The most sensible attitude is to learn unadulterated science and
Scripture. How the two jibe is the problem. I believe that they do.
"While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world." John 9:5.
Certainly Christ was not speaking here of EM radiation. Then, what sort
of light was it? I do not know but it must be something that was
detected by the human self but not physical devices!

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jack Haas
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:14 AM
To: Michael Roberts
Cc: gordon brown; Loren Haarsma; _American Sci Affil
Subject: Re: Examples of God accomodating ancient "science" in the
Bible?

The rhetorical style that concerns Michael is a modern example of an old

tradition that endures to this day. The use of examples from nature to

illustrate biblical truths was a big deal when I was a kid. There were
science evangelists who gave such talks in the Philadelphia area and I
suppose some of you can offer further examples. Perhaps Irwin Moon was
part of this tradition.

In any case there was much of this 'spiritual truths from nature' talk
in John Wesley's day (although he was against it) and in the Victorian
period. Those of us from a German background might remember a similar
tradition.

After all, were not the gods bound up in the heavens?

The rightness of using nature to illustrate (prove) religious truth is
somewhat culture dependent, so I would not dismiss the strategy out of
hand as foolishness. What I do know, is that it got one young boy
interested in science and showed him that God and nature were not in
conflict.

Jack Haas

Michael Roberts wrote:

>How about this quotation which is not YEC and may embarrass some on
this
>list,
>Doesn't it make you cringe and wonder what kind of thought processes
are
>going on?
>I don't know what Loren will say about it.
>To me it is just nonsense.
>
>Michael
>
>An extract;
>
>Two Kinds of Light
>And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.
>Genesis 1:3
>
>The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
>John 1:9
>
>You will probably agree that light, both physically and spiritually, is
>second in importance only to God Himself. Physical light
(electromagnetic
>radiation) was the first thing God created (Genesis 1:3). Without
that
>light we would not be able to see the wonders of God's creation.
>Furthermore, it provides the energy for plants, which in turn provide
energy
>for herbivores, which provide energy for carnivores. Life as we know
it
>would be impossible without the light from the sun.
> Although the Bible only refers to that part of the electromagnetic
(EM)
>spectrum that we can see, modern scientific instruments have revealed
>natural radiation, covering the entire spectrum, coming from all
regions of
>the universe. Therefore, when God created light, it is reasonable to
think
>that He created the entire spectrum of EM radiation.
>If you are confused about the creation of light before the sun and moon
were
>created, an examination of the Hebrew words for light should help.
When
>referring to the creation of the sun and moon (Genesis 1:16), the
Hebrew
>word used for light is ma'or, which means a light giver; whereas in
Genesis
>1:3, the word for light is 'or, meaning radiance. This suggests that
on the
>first day, the light God created came from a source other than the sun,
>moon, or stars. In the strictest sense, the moon should not be
described as
>a giver of light because it only reflects the light it receives from
the
>sun. But from our perspective on Earth, the moon is a source of light.
>We see that the Bible describes the world in a manner consistent with
human
>observations-observations unaided by modern scientific instruments or
>knowledge. This was necessary to insure that the Hebrews and gentiles
of
>biblical times would understand the messages the Bible was intended to
>convey. The Bible was not written to instruct us on the technical
details
>of EM radiation. Rather, it was written to inform us of an entirely
>different kind of light-the spiritual light referred to in Isaiah 2:5,
>Matthew 5:16, and John 1:9.
>When this spiritual light was about to be momentarily extinguished on
the
>cross, Jesus of Nazareth stood before the Roman governor, Pontius
Pilate,
>and testified, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for
this
>reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to
the
>truth.".
>Yes, Jesus brought truth to the world, but finding the truths about the
>physical world required a different kind of light-the EM light that God
>created on the first day. No fewer than eighty times, as recorded in
the
>Gospels, Jesus, proclaimed, "I tell you the truth." But not once does
the
>Bible say He explained a physical/scientific truth. This steadfast
reality
>should convince us that God did not intend to use His written
revelation to
>explain technical details of His creation. The light Christ brought
was
>meant to illuminate spiritual truths, not physical truths, and that is
the
>kind of truth the Bible contains.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Feb 1 10:58:53 2005