[asa] Re: Are there guidelines for accommodational interpretation?

Jack wrote,
<<My problem with this, and the original question of this thread is that it
seems too convenient to adopt an accomodationalist stance every time the
scriptures do not seem to agree with scientific truth.

Are there some boundaries drawn around accomodational interpretation? Is
there some clue within the Biblical text that tells us this? >>

I do not like accommodation thought of or used as a quick and easy answer to
every conflict found in the Bible. But, since revelation always comes
imbedded in a cultural context, it is not easy (at least for me) to spell
out all of the rules for its use. But, here is some thinking.

 God makes no claim in Scripture to reveal science qua science. As Calvin
said, "The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy" and he then went
on to tell his readers that if they wanted to learn astronomy to ask the
astronomers, not the Bible.

In confirmation of this position I have found in my studies that as far as I
have been able to ascertain, whenever Scripture touches on a matter of
science, the science qua science is false and can objectively be
shown or reasonably surmised to be the science of the times.

In addition, my examination of the claims that Scripture teaches that the
science in the Bible because inspired will always be inerrant is not derived
from the biblical texts either directly or by necessary logic.
I conclude that the purpose of revelation has solely to do with matters of
faith and morals (2Tim 3:16).

As a result of the above, I believe that with regard to science as such,
there is no boundary to accommodation.
All science in Scripture is the science of the times. All science in
Scripture is accommodated. It is not just a matter of Genesis 1-11. Science
in the Bible is the science of the times from cover to cover.

Problems arise, however, with regard to history because if the science is
wrong, sometimes the history is affected--as happens throughout Gen 1-11.
History in Scripture is not always wrong, not even usually wrong, so there
must be some boundaries to claiming accommodation with regard to the Bible's
history.

Please understand that my original purpose was simply to understand why
Scripture, especially in Genesis 1-11 disagrees with modern science; and I
believe the above is the answer to that question. It is only in the last
five years or so that I have begun doing serious thinking about biblical
history, so there is no doubt, more to be said than I have so far
discovered. But, here is what I have found:

God makes no claim in Scripture to reveal history any more than he does to
reveal science. Biblical historians never claim to have gotten their
historical facts directly from God by revelation. They say or imply that
they got their facts from human documents.

So, two questions to ask with regard to history are, What are the
historian's sources? and are there any extra-biblical sources or data which
confirm or falsify the biblical history? A third question is What are the
purposes of the biblical historian?

Paul

4.

 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 13 21:49:13 2006