Welcome to Christian Forum Site
Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community of christians from around the world.
Register now

Hermaneutics, Interpretation of Scripture and General Revelation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Feb 10, 2015
769
936
93
Maryland
Can you give an example.
I dont quite understand because christians are actually given revelation by the Holy Spirit to understand scripture. The Holy Spirit is unseen, and one must have faith in what is UNSEEN.

All the evidence supplied by God...the holy spirit is a gift given to us. He supplies us. The physical evidence that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, is to us available in scripture which is an eye witness account written down, unless you are advocating archeological evidence, in which case scientists and skeptics need to go visit Israel to see for themselves the empty tomb, in Jerusalem, go to the dead sea, go to Bethlehem, Nazareth, the temple mount where the holy of holies was, mt sinai, go beneath the red sea to see evidence of the eyptians being crushed by water, see the mount of olives, etc.

His chosen people, the israelites, the ones who speak hebrew, the ones who had the oracles of God, and preserve them in scriptures we can see today. Bearing witness...it is the changed lives of Christians and their testimonies that is the best witness. Its the healing we receive in our bodies, and often this manifestation is physical, that bears witness..the deaf hearing, the blind seeing, the lame walking.

What else can we look to, we can see the stars as many as sand on the sea shore, or the heavens when we look up, proclaiming the glory of God. We can see pictured of the planet earth from space and see we are the only planet that has water and see the evidence that God DID send a flood and if one looks at our planet earth from space more than half, maybe 2/3rds of its covered with water, especially the pacific ocean. We can see that the planet is lopsided and spins on an axis, suggesting a great disruption that took place, and how the land has been moved around as if the land had been divided.
We can measure the earths temperature over time and see the globe is indeed warming up, as Jesus shown in prophecy that there will be a judgement day where there the elements will melt with fervent heat.

We can see land that has been destroyed by humans as evidence that humans are wicked and sinful, and need God. When we find rest in gardens and by fresh water we can see evidence of Gods original creation was good, the way He intended it to be in Eden.
The Bible uses the physical world to teach us about God and spiritual things. That is one way the heavens can declare the glory of the Lord.

Look at the way nature is used in conjunction with the acts of God. Look at Proverbs. Look at Psalms. It is the purpose of creation to teach us about God. We should not 'go to class' thinking we already know everything and contradict the teacher when the teacher attempts to correct misconceptions.

In Romans 1:20, Paul decries the fact that mankind, has not learned from the things that He made. Note that he does not say that they have not heeded the scriptures, but that they have not learned from the world around them. This applies to both believers and non-believers.

In 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21, Paul admonishes us to follow the Spirit (V19) and not ignore scripture (v20). The way we are to do this is to test or prove all things, especially the scriptures (or, rather our interpretation of scripture) (V21). One way to do this is to compare what we think the Bible is saying with the world He made. When we find an appearance of conflict we shout examine the problem from both sides. Sometimes we can find a resolution, sometimes not, but even when conflict remains we should not doubt either the Word of God, nor the world He made.

If we are not willing to employ physical creation in this way, the heavens may be declaring the Glory of God, but we are covering our ears with our hands and refusing to learn.
 
Mar 12, 2019
67
36
18
64
Merkel, Texas
The Bible uses the physical world to teach us about God and spiritual things. That is one way the heavens can declare the glory of the Lord.

Look at the way nature is used in conjunction with the acts of God. Look at Proverbs. Look at Psalms. It is the purpose of creation to teach us about God. We should not 'go to class' thinking we already know everything and contradict the teacher when the teacher attempts to correct misconceptions.

In Romans 1:20, Paul decries the fact that mankind, has not learned from the things that He made. Note that he does not say that they have not heeded the scriptures, but that they have not learned from the world around them. This applies to both believers and non-believers.

In 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21, Paul admonishes us to follow the Spirit (V19) and not ignore scripture (v20). The way we are to do this is to test or prove all things, especially the scriptures (or, rather our interpretation of scripture) (V21). One way to do this is to compare what we think the Bible is saying with the world He made. When we find an appearance of conflict we shout examine the problem from both sides. Sometimes we can find a resolution, sometimes not, but even when conflict remains we should not doubt either the Word of God, nor the world He made.

If we are not willing to employ physical creation in this way, the heavens may be declaring the Glory of God, but we are covering our ears with our hands and refusing to learn.
I understand that creation declares the glory of God, but the heavens declaring the glory of God is a far cry from creation declaring to us the origin of the universe or answering the question of causation. This is something it cannot do. We have to admit that when it comes to the observation of material evidences, a great many scientific conclusions are subjective and are based on theories that are non-observable and non-provable. It needs to be understood that our observation of the natural world is incapable of telling us all the truth about our world and our relationship to it, nor was it designed to do so. In fact, our world was created so that we are forced to operate on faith. When we look to the natural world to answer the question of causation, what we are trusting in is not the material evidences but in our five senses to correctly interpret what we see. Our senses are instilled within each of us by the Creator and are indeed a necessary component of our material existence. We cannot however, trust our five senses to tell us all the truth about causality.
 
Dec 19, 2014
4,994
2,206
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
I dont think anyone here is saying WE are not employing physical creation to learn from God.

When you say 'we' are you meaning yourself? Me and you? Or are you talking about unbelieving scientists. What class are you even talking about?

I'm not an unbelieving scientist or much of a scientist at all but I work with what God has created everyday.

Have you ever taught a class? Do you teach outdoors and show your students what soil is, and say God created this soil. Do you show students a tree, ask them to study it, and explain how it grows from a seed and what healing propeties it has and what it can be used for. Or do you just see it as something that gets in the way of your view from a building you have made.
 
Dec 19, 2014
4,994
2,206
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
I understand that creation declares the glory of God, but the heavens declaring the glory of God is a far cry from creation declaring to us the origin of the universe or answering the question of causation. This is something it cannot do. We have to admit that when it comes to the observation of material evidences, a great many scientific conclusions are subjective and are based on theories that are non-observable and non-provable. It needs to be understood that our observation of the natural world is incapable of telling us all the truth about our world and our relationship to it, nor was it designed to do so. In fact, our world was created so that we are forced to operate on faith. When we look to the natural world to answer the question of causation, what we are trusting in is not the material evidences but in our five senses to correctly interpret what we see. Our senses are instilled within each of us by the Creator and are indeed a necessary component of our material existence. We cannot however, trust our five senses to tell us all the truth about causality.
Thats true the natural man cant understand the spiritual it needs to be revealed to him. I think its stilly to speculate and we cant go in a time travel machine or extrapolate right back to the beginning of time using whats here now. Why cos we always get it wrong! But we do know what God tells us cos we take His word for it. Thats faith.

Also take into account much of creation is fallen, and polluted it would be like eating junk food and then saying the Lord is good cos He gave us chewing gum, and plastic bags.
 
Mar 12, 2019
67
36
18
64
Merkel, Texas
I dont think anyone here is saying WE are not employing physical creation to learn from God.

When you say 'we' are you meaning yourself? Me and you? Or are you talking about unbelieving scientists. What class are you even talking about?

I'm not an unbelieving scientist or much of a scientist at all but I work with what God has created everyday.

Have you ever taught a class? Do you teach outdoors and show your students what soil is, and say God created this soil. Do you show students a tree, ask them to study it, and explain how it grows from a seed and what healing propeties it has and what it can be used for. Or do you just see it as something that gets in the way of your view from a building you have made.
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear on this point. When I say 'we', I mean people in general. This certainly is not representative of everyone.

Of course I look at the trees, grass, and soil and say "God created that." But we do not know this because our observation of the natural world leads us to this conclusion. We know it because the word of God tells us this is true.
 
Last edited:

bobinfaith

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Senior Moderator
For those reading this who may not be familiar with the concept of dyadic and triadic reasoning, I will try to explain this as succinctly as possible without bogging you down with a lot of baggage. Dyadic reasoning is representative of how people generally relate to their world. If God is considered at all, it is only at the nominal level or even as a benign factor. Triadic reality is made up of the eternal, this is the part of reality we cannot see; the temporal, which is the world of objects that lends itself to human empirical observation; and the linkage between the two. The linkage creates continuity between the observable and the non-observable. Everything scripture reveals about both the natural and the non-natural world is based on this triadic structure. You cannot escape it. Understanding this changes the way we read scripture.
Hello oldhermit;

Thank you for explaining dyadic and triadic reasoning. You helped us understand how you apply these concepts to Bible reading.

I'd like to ask all of us a question that I have asked believers who are scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, botanists, gardeners, musicians, etc...;

How do you take your area of expertise and hone on in on witnessing or evangelizing to the unreached educated, sophisticated or worldly smart and all peoples?

I've been retired from the accounting field but use my God given skill and ongoing study of the Scriptures to help others become better stewards of their finances.

Its amazing how God can use what He has assigned us to bring others for His glory.

God bless you all and your families.
 
Mar 12, 2019
67
36
18
64
Merkel, Texas
Hello oldhermit;

Thank you for explaining dyadic and triadic reasoning. You helped us understand how you apply these concepts to Bible reading.

I'd like to ask all of us a question that I have asked believers who are scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, botanists, gardeners, musicians, etc...;

How do you take your area of expertise and hone on in on witnessing or evangelizing to the unreached educated, sophisticated or worldly smart and all peoples?

I've been retired from the accounting field but use my God given skill and ongoing study of the Scriptures to help others become better stewards of their finances.

Its amazing how God can use what He has assigned us to bring others for His glory.

God bless you all and your families.
Well, I have not thought of it quite like that I suppose. I teach Bible and write. That is what I do. So I guess for me, it is sort of a given.
 
Sep 3, 2009
11,676
4,437
113
Florida
After reading through most of this thread it seems the larger question concerns how the Bible is to be read and understood. You made a good observation regarding what the Bible is NOT and I quite agree. Although the Bible contains element of all of these fields of study, this does not tell us what the Bible is. For example, the Bible is not a historical document though everything it records is historically true. It is not a narrative document though it contains many narratives. It is not a document on ethics, doctrine, and soteriology but has much to say on each. The question remains then, what kind of document is the Bible and how should we treat this book?
Agreed. I would also add that t could be said that the Bible is a book of history--and it is. The Bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail. It is essentially an historical account of the people of God throughout thousands of years.

Today the walls of Jericho have been found--destroyed just as the Bible says. Many critics doubted that Nazareth ever existed, yet archaeologists have found a first-century synagogue inscription at Caesarea that has verified its existence. Finds have verified the existence of Herod the Great and his son Herod Antipas. The remains of the Apostle Peter's house have been found at Capernaum. Bones with nail scars through the wrists and feet have been uncovered as well demonstrating the actuality of crucifixion. The High Priest Caiaphas' bones have been discovered in an ossuary.

However, above all that the Bible is actually a "collection of documents" which IMO are documents of faith.

To me, the books of the Bible are signed legal documents. The message is the same with or without any variations so that today we can comfortably say that we have the Word of God.

The Anvil? God's Word!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldhermit
Mar 12, 2019
67
36
18
64
Merkel, Texas
Agreed. I would also add that t could be said that the Bible is a book of history--and it is. The Bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail. It is essentially an historical account of the people of God throughout thousands of years.

Today the walls of Jericho have been found--destroyed just as the Bible says. Many critics doubted that Nazareth ever existed, yet archaeologists have found a first-century synagogue inscription at Caesarea that has verified its existence. Finds have verified the existence of Herod the Great and his son Herod Antipas. The remains of the Apostle Peter's house have been found at Capernaum. Bones with nail scars through the wrists and feet have been uncovered as well demonstrating the actuality of crucifixion. The High Priest Caiaphas' bones have been discovered in an ossuary.

However, above all that the Bible is actually a "collection of documents" which IMO are documents of faith.

To me, the books of the Bible are signed legal documents. The message is the same with or without any variations so that today we can comfortably say that we have the Word of God.

The Anvil? God's Word!!!!
I think above all, and at the most basic level, the Bible should be understood as a representational document because it represents the mind of God. It reveals the man the mind of the Creator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major
Sep 3, 2009
11,676
4,437
113
Florida
I think above all, and at the most basic level, the Bible should be understood as a representational document because it represents the mind of God. It reveals the man the mind of the Creator.
YES sir. I agree completely. Good stuff!

Then when we consider that Jesus is the revelation of God to man then we realize that the only place we find that truth is in the Bible!
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldhermit
Sep 3, 2009
11,676
4,437
113
Florida
Hello oldhermit;

Thank you for explaining dyadic and triadic reasoning. You helped us understand how you apply these concepts to Bible reading.

I'd like to ask all of us a question that I have asked believers who are scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, botanists, gardeners, musicians, etc...;

How do you take your area of expertise and hone on in on witnessing or evangelizing to the unreached educated, sophisticated or worldly smart and all peoples?

I've been retired from the accounting field but use my God given skill and ongoing study of the Scriptures to help others become better stewards of their finances.

Its amazing how God can use what He has assigned us to bring others for His glory.

God bless you all and your families.
Good thoughts! To some people, such as pastors and such, witnessing to the lost is actually pretty simple.

But for those you are talking about, it may be more difficult as they maybe waiting for an "opportunity" to present itself instead of taking the lead on any given conversation.

My 1st thought in such a case would be to bring up the conditions of the world we now live in to a lost person and then ask them if they have a cure for ails men????
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobinfaith
Mar 12, 2019
67
36
18
64
Merkel, Texas
YES sir. I agree completely. Good stuff!

Then when we consider that Jesus is the revelation of God to man then we realize that the only place we find that truth is in the Bible!
Absolutely. Scripture must be recognized as the surface form of absolute intelligence. If scripture serves as the surface form of an absolute intelligence, we must deduce from this that there is an intelligence that exists beyond what we see in the raw material substances of a book. Scripture exists as a bridge or index that links us to the absolute intelligence of God. When we read scripture, we are only getting a glimpse of the character of the Almighty. As powerful and as revealing as the language of the inspired text may be, it is still only a representation of a mind that we could never come into contact with by any other means. It is through the grammatical structure of the text that we are able to come to some kind of understanding of a world that exists beyond the confines of our sensory existence.
 
Sep 3, 2009
11,676
4,437
113
Florida
Absolutely. Scripture must be recognized as the surface form of absolute intelligence. If scripture serves as the surface form of an absolute intelligence, we must deduce from this that there is an intelligence that exists beyond what we see in the raw material substances of a book. Scripture exists as a bridge or index that links us to the absolute intelligence of God. When we read scripture, we are only getting a glimpse of the character of the Almighty. As powerful and as revealing as the language of the inspired text may be, it is still only a representation of a mind that we could never come into contact with by any other means. It is through the grammatical structure of the text that we are able to come to some kind of understanding of a world that exists beyond the confines of our sensory existence.
Excellent! Thanks for your comments!
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldhermit
Feb 10, 2015
769
936
93
Maryland
I’m not sure that I have made myself clear.

What I am NOT advocating is that one should choose a scientific view of a scientific question and reject a Biblical correct teaching, or even a particular Biblical interpretation.

What I am saying is:

  • that if one had a full and correct understanding of Scripture, the truth will be consistent with that full and correct understanding of scripture.
  • that if one had full and correct understanding of physics, chemistry, geology, and all other natural scientific disciplines that the truth will consistent with that correct understanding since the natural laws are a manifestation of their creator and meant to show His nature.
  • That we have neither a full and correct understanding of Scripture, nor a full and correct understanding of natural laws, since we are limited persons.
Far from being antagonistic, the true understanding of scripture will be consistent with a true understanding of nature.

Starting from that basis; and noting that believing Christians disagree on many points of Scripture beyond some fundamental beliefs which are the foundation of salvation, and that the Sciences develop over time, and this although the natural laws are consent, our understanding of them is not.

As an analogy using Ephesians 2:8 vs James 2:18:

Consider a 1st century Believer from Ephesus meeting a Believer who had just heard James preach about the value of works. The Ephesian has been meditating on grace and salvation and that works, however great does not guarantee salvation.

The follower of James, however, has been meditating on the importance of living a life pleasing to God.

From our stand point, being on this side of the canonization of scripture and knowing that they are both correct, can point out that Ephesians is about salvation (being a Christian or not), while James is about making Christianity a foundation for a way of life, particularly related to personal comportment.

If one needs to know the conduit of salvation (and thus heaven in the afterlife), Ephesians is a good place to look. But if one wants to know what God expects of us ‘in the meantime’, James will show that each of us has a responsibility for how we live our life.

Now, since the approach through sciences is quite different than the approach through scripture, there will be some apparent conflicts. My thesis is that these differences are because of our limited understanding of them both.

But the sciences are an investigation of His creation. Some scientists think that that is all there is, but even those that are believers understand the value in NOT considering prophetic information.

But, the Bible provides the best view of God as a person deserving of worship, and his relationship to man, His beloved creation.

In most cases, there is little to fret about. We can learn about aerodynamics and make reliable, not perfect, airplanes without causing much disgruntlement from theologians.

The Bible can provide much information about what our Lord wishes and requires for and of us and it will only be of interest to philosophers, which is far from the kind of science I am talking about here.

The problem occurs when a given subjects overlaps both the spiritual approach and the natural science approach, and each leads us to a contrasting conclusion.

In my view, we must consider precisely what we are trying to know, and which has the best view for that question, knowing that we are limited in both approaches and that further investigation and reflection on either or both approach may change our understanding. We should also examine the other approach for reconciliation whether it is exceptions to generalized physical laws, or alternate interpretations of scripture.

This is not rejection of overriding of scripture. It is recognizing our own limitations in both approaches and using each to minimize our errors in the other, putting God’s creation to work in teaching us about Him, which is what is intended.
 
Feb 10, 2015
769
936
93
Maryland
Absolutely. Scripture must be recognized as the surface form of absolute intelligence. If scripture serves as the surface form of an absolute intelligence, we must deduce from this that there is an intelligence that exists beyond what we see in the raw material substances of a book. Scripture exists as a bridge or index that links us to the absolute intelligence of God. When we read scripture, we are only getting a glimpse of the character of the Almighty. As powerful and as revealing as the language of the inspired text may be, it is still only a representation of a mind that we could never come into contact with by any other means. It is through the grammatical structure of the text that we are able to come to some kind of understanding of a world that exists beyond the confines of our sensory existence.
I am not suggesting that the Bible should be disregarded. I am only recognizing our limitations in understanding and using God's expression of Himself in nature as a possible means of clarification.

This still recognizes the infallibility of the Bible itself, which stems from the infallibility of God. The fallibility lies in our understanding.
 
Mar 12, 2019
67
36
18
64
Merkel, Texas
I’m not sure that I have made myself clear.

What I am NOT advocating is that one should choose a scientific view of a scientific question and reject a Biblical correct teaching, or even a particular Biblical interpretation.

What I am saying is:

  • that if one had a full and correct understanding of Scripture, the truth will be consistent with that full and correct understanding of scripture.
  • that if one had full and correct understanding of physics, chemistry, geology, and all other natural scientific disciplines that the truth will consistent with that correct understanding since the natural laws are a manifestation of their creator and meant to show His nature.
  • That we have neither a full and correct understanding of Scripture, nor a full and correct understanding of natural laws, since we are limited persons.
Far from being antagonistic, the true understanding of scripture will be consistent with a true understanding of nature.

Starting from that basis; and noting that believing Christians disagree on many points of Scripture beyond some fundamental beliefs which are the foundation of salvation, and that the Sciences develop over time, and this although the natural laws are consent, our understanding of them is not.

As an analogy using Ephesians 2:8 vs James 2:18:

Consider a 1st century Believer from Ephesus meeting a Believer who had just heard James preach about the value of works. The Ephesian has been meditating on grace and salvation and that works, however great does not guarantee salvation.

The follower of James, however, has been meditating on the importance of living a life pleasing to God.

From our stand point, being on this side of the canonization of scripture and knowing that they are both correct, can point out that Ephesians is about salvation (being a Christian or not), while James is about making Christianity a foundation for a way of life, particularly related to personal comportment.

If one needs to know the conduit of salvation (and thus heaven in the afterlife), Ephesians is a good place to look. But if one wants to know what God expects of us ‘in the meantime’, James will show that each of us has a responsibility for how we live our life.

Now, since the approach through sciences is quite different than the approach through scripture, there will be some apparent conflicts. My thesis is that these differences are because of our limited understanding of them both.

But the sciences are an investigation of His creation. Some scientists think that that is all there is, but even those that are believers understand the value in NOT considering prophetic information.

But, the Bible provides the best view of God as a person deserving of worship, and his relationship to man, His beloved creation.

In most cases, there is little to fret about. We can learn about aerodynamics and make reliable, not perfect, airplanes without causing much disgruntlement from theologians.

The Bible can provide much information about what our Lord wishes and requires for and of us and it will only be of interest to philosophers, which is far from the kind of science I am talking about here.

The problem occurs when a given subjects overlaps both the spiritual approach and the natural science approach, and each leads us to a contrasting conclusion.

In my view, we must consider precisely what we are trying to know, and which has the best view for that question, knowing that we are limited in both approaches and that further investigation and reflection on either or both approach may change our understanding. We should also examine the other approach for reconciliation whether it is exceptions to generalized physical laws, or alternate interpretations of scripture.

This is not rejection of overriding of scripture. It is recognizing our own limitations in both approaches and using each to minimize our errors in the other, putting God’s creation to work in teaching us about Him, which is what is intended.
What you are suggesting is that revelation can only be understood through a proper understanding of the natural world. This is all backwards. This posses a problem because this assumes that our understanding of the natural evidences is correct. Clearly this is not true. When we do this, here is what ends up happening. In order to try to create some kind of synthesis between our interpretation of natural evidences and the grammatical structure of scripture, we are forced to manipulate the language of the biblical text when it stands contrary our interpretation of the natural evidences. We would rather change the inspired word of God than change the way we see the world. Truth does not begin within the world of man; it begins with the mind of God which is provided to us in scripture. You cannot begin with human reason and map that onto scripture and expect to arrive at truth. Our understanding of human experience, history, time, and culture do not explain scripture. Scripture explains human experience, history, time, and culture. Higher criticism attempts to render the Bible subordinate to a historical and cultural framework. I cannot imagine why anyone would do this except to undermine or minimize the text. This denies the Word of God its authority over human reasoning and exalts human intelligence over the intelligence of God. It also disregards God as the controlling agent over the biblical text.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Major
Feb 10, 2015
769
936
93
Maryland
So, lets take a real-world example from real history:

Galileo Galilei was excommunicated by the Church for his support of the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus. The Church held that the Bible taught that the Earth did not move, and hence could not orbit the sun.

The church based its views of Biblical teaching on:

1 Chronicles 16:30
Tremble before Him, all the earth;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.

Psalm 93:1
The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.


Psalms 96:10
Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples with equity.”



Psalms 194:5
He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter forever and ever.


Ecclesiastes 1:5
Also, the sun rises and the sun sets;
And hastening to its place it rises there again

The church also based its case on the teachings of Aristotle which although was initially banned, became church offical teaching by 1616 when the church declared heliocentrism to be heresy.

Now, the heliocentric view came about because astronomers kept careful and exacting for the time records of observations and analyzed this data. It was found that although a heliocentric model could be made to work, it took a great many fiddly bits such as epicycles for which no explanation was available. But a heliocentric model made it possible to correctly predict the paths of objects within the solar system with much fewer calculations.

Today, we understand that there is no absolute geometric center to the Universe. When we are talking about things that orbit around the Earth, we use the Earth as center. For other cases we may use the moon, or the sun, or some other body or the galactic center, etc.

But the Bible is not about orbital mechanics, it is about Gods relationship with Man, and it makes sense to use mans environment as the frame of reference. In Galileo’s case, the interpretation of scripture ignored what is to my lay understanding the first step of establishing point of view. In most, if not all of scripture the point of view for creation is either from God’s standpoint (outside and apart from creation), or man’s point of view, in which the ground is solid and unmoving. When one considers any other, the result is not so much against the teachings of scripture, but requires mathematical translation to make sense.

It was not that either Galileo or the Bible was in error but the application, if not the interpretation of scripture was faulty.

I am not trying to re-try either the church, nor Galileo, but use it as an example where some insight from observation of creation could shed light on Biblical teachings.
 
Mar 12, 2019
67
36
18
64
Merkel, Texas
I am not suggesting there is no value in the study of the sciences but, all the sciences can do is confirm the truths that are already in scripture. We can know that the earth is round not because of any scientific observation of statistic regularities, but because scripture tells us this is true. Science can only struggle to play catch up with revealed knowledge. This does not suggest that scripture provides us with the answer to every scientific question. That is not the function of scripture. What I am saying is that the truth about causation and the nature of the natural world does not come from a study of the sciences, it comes from revelation. This always has to be the starting point, and when science comes into conflict with the revealed text, it will invariably be man's limited understanding of his world that is n error.

The Church has had an unfortunate legacy of using the historical critical method in its practice of scripture reading. We have routinely chosen to start with human intelligence to create some type of synthesis between the human historical experience and the text of scripture. We start with current human observation and then try to work back in time searching for a point of causation that seems to fit what we think we understand of the universe. We then formulate theories that seem to best fit the evidence at hand and then we rationalize scenarios that satisfy what we will accept as a ‘rational’ view of how scripture fits into our human experience. How absurd is this? We have an insatiable desire to maintain control over the biblical text both logically and psychologically. We want to hold on to a comfortable reading of the text that fits our view of reality; and we have felt confident that such a method of scripture reading can foster a valid interpretation of what we mistakenly regard as a historical document. The problem with this method is that human intelligence does not have the capacity to start with itself in order to synthesize our physical existence with what scripture says about it.
 
Last edited:
Sep 3, 2009
11,676
4,437
113
Florida
What you are suggesting is that revelation can only be understood through a proper understanding of the natural world. This is all backwards. This posses a problem because this assumes that our understanding of the natural evidences is correct. Clearly this is not true. When we do this, here is what ends up happening. In order to try to create some kind of synthesis between our interpretation of natural evidences and the grammatical structure of scripture, we are forced to manipulate the language of the biblical text when it stands contrary our interpretation of the natural evidences. We would rather change the inspired word of God than change the way we see the world. Truth does not begin within the world of man; it begins with the mind of God which is provided to us in scripture. You cannot begin with human reason and map that onto scripture and expect to arrive at truth. Our understanding of human experience, history, time, and culture do not explain scripture. Scripture explains human experience, history, time, and culture. Higher criticism attempts to render the Bible subordinate to a historical and cultural framework. I cannot imagine why anyone would do this except to undermine or minimize the text. This denies the Word of God its authority over human reasoning and exalts human intelligence over the intelligence of God. It also disregards God as the controlling agent over the biblical text.
Agreed!
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldhermit
Dec 19, 2014
4,994
2,206
113
New Zealand
www.literatelibrarian.com
Yea science is often shown to be wrong, for example, siloam you make a claim, based on science, that there is no centre of the universe.

Where do you get that silly idea?

The Bible shows us that God is the centre of the universe. Revelation shows us that living water proceeds from hIs throne. That there are angels surrounding His glory. That we are nothing apart from God and outside of his heavenly kingdom, there is outer darkness.

The Bible shows us that God is light, a consuming fire, so, one can reasonably conclude that a light giving source, like the sun, will draw other heavenly bodies into its orbit.

But knowing the earth orbits the sun does it shed light on biblical teachings? I think thats backwards. Doesnt the sun, whenever it appears shed light to our earth, makes plants grow and makes a new day...
Also does not the Bible say, God is light, in Him there is no darkness at all.

Another to consider, every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.


There is no shadow of his turning. When we go from day to night, its because the earth turns.

Consider, if you lived in darkness, and never saw the sun, would you have much chance of surviving.
Anyway question, what value really is it to predict paths of objects in the solar system. How does predicting the paths of objects in our solar system shed light on biblical teachings. When the magi followed the star of the east, they knew it would lead them to the Messiah, but even they went to Jerusalem first to enquire..and they had to refer to scripture to find out Christ was born in Bethlehem.

How did they actually know it was 'his star in the east'? And not just any star?
Were the magi or wise men scientists because they observed stars? Or had it been revealed to them by God that there was something about that star?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major
Status
Not open for further replies.