The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

generally, scientific opinion changes while Biblical interpretation does not (liberal revisionists notwithstanding)

my point is Paul believed what the Bible Said & i find that instructive

now, can science reveal a deeper understanding of a particular Passage? -- yes -- but if science tells me X & the Bible Tells me Y (where X<>Y) then i'm going with Y -- others, including Christians, are free to choose X, or even Z, as long as it doesn't override core doctrine

i'm not sure what you mean here -- i see Paul taking Genesis literally

who can accurately answer this? -- my hunch is God is more concerned that mankind understands WHO Created the universe, not how it was done -- so my suspicion is the answer to your Q, having zero to do with the Redemptive Plan of God, would be no (for this reason i don't get wrapped up in Creation debates) -- i would prefer to hear why old earth folks think God Wrote Ex. 20:8-11 vs. telling me the universe is 15.3B yrs (or whatever the current estimate is) -- did God Use poetic license? -- that argument would be offensive to me as it maligns God's Character

science has delivered numerous ways to better take care of the masses so that is noble -- see your commerce comment -- but our blue state friends may see this as a negative -- some of science is akin to the Tower of Babel -- pride enters into this debate far too easily -- we're so sophisticated & modern these days, after all -- to paraphrase the cat in Jurassic Park, sometimes we race to do something because we can w/o ever asking if we should

interaction is fine but we need to protect against being "unequally yoked" -- we must be vigilant to not let science become an idol -- &, yes, it's complex & subtle, like you said

Biblical interpretation changes all the time (certainly including liberal revisionists). We do not interpret as the Church once interpreted, but have (hopefully) advanced in some ways and less-hopefully have faltered in other ways. Methods have changed, notions of understanding, meaning, textuality, word-interplay, etc. have changed over time and will certainly continue to, because we are all finite beings with limited understanding.

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

Why would we want to intertain the idea of an old earth, in light of being told numerous time in the OT that creation occurred in six days, unless we think we have to accept an old earth since the concept of evolution requires it in order to account for all that evolving that is supposed to have taken place so slowly?

please share an example or 3 so others can grasp the scope of your stmt

Has the Church always interpreted everything the same? Have you always interpreted everything always the same? When did the Historical-Grammatical form of interpretation appear on the scene? Has it remained a stagnant pre-set form (following a pre-determined formula) or has it changed as well over time? Do we know all there is to know about Biblical interpretation? Do we all see eye-to-eye on every matter of interpretation (how, what, why, etc.) even as may hold to nearly identical theological underpinnings? Put simply: Biblical interpretation changes, because Biblical interpreters change.

I'm merely noting this, because Biblical interpreters have no room for being arrogant about their interpretation versus scientific interpretations (or any others). We can (and must) be convinced and humble at the same time. It is not a matter of fact (nor of common knowledge) that Biblical interpreters are somehow immune to the contingencies of all things creaturely.

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

Antipater -- perhaps speaking to students vs. teachers would've been more helpful

to the best of my knowledge, yes -- have i made minor revisions? -- yes -- have i made a major change in a doctrinal view? -- technically, yes -- but this was only after i scrutinized the Word on a particular issue (i.e., impeccability of Christ)

i thought of this after asking the Q...you could've cited Origen to my Q as he brought the nonsense of "everything is allegory" into the mix -- me thinks Paul would've disagreed with him but hey

no -- i forget the verse where God Tells us more will be Revealed as the end grows near -- i've always said 1 could study a single verse their whole life & not exhaust the meaning found therein -- so the journey is the reward -- Luke 24:32 is so true whenever the Word is discussed, read, heard, etc!

i have no idea what the blue phrase means -- who talks like that? -- i will offer that Biblical interpreters are human & so can walk in the flesh & also make mistakes -- but they have the Spirit whereas not all scientists do -- hence, the odds are in the interpretors' favor

i wholeheartedly agree which is why i don't get worked up over this particularly contentious issue -- sure, i have my opinion -- but i listen to other views & have had my share of physics classes too so attempt to mesh both sides when applicable -- & i revise as needed, something i'm certain all of us do

what bothers me most about this topic is not that i may be right or wrong but how disagreeable Christians can become to each other when immersed in it -- i thought TULIP debates were bad but this 1 trumps it & not in a good way -- so i try & stay close to the shore when wading in as my sarcasm button is far too big & awfully close by

Operational science affects us. It gives us computers and cars. It allows engineers to design skyscrapers and bridges. But when we talk of origins we move away from operational science and into forensic science.

You can see two forensic scientists take evidence, in a court of law, and give two conflicting stories from the same evidence. Proverbs 18:17 I won't ignore what God has told us because a forensic scientist gives me a conflicting story based on unprovable assumptions driven by the need for "deep time" for his atheistic origin story.

I don't buy the distinction between operational science and forensic science.

Geology is just as much hard science as chemistry is.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

I'vre never heard such an argument from a scientist. It sounds like specious reasoning to me.

I'm pretty sure that the geologists don't rest their case on anything like this. IIRC, the acceptance of the old earth hypothesis predates Origin of Species by something like a century. This is from memory, so I'll have to look it up.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

Then why do two forensic scientists give conflicting accounts regarding the same evidence (going back to the court room example)?

How do you decide when to believe the Bible and when to believe man's opinion?

I don't have a hard and fast rule. They hardly ever deal with the same subject, anyway.

And when they do, they often say the same thing, only in different language.

BTW, I draw a distinction between "man's opinion" and the conclusions of science, however provisional they may be. (I was trying to think of the word "provisional" earlier when all I could come up with was "tentative").

Let's take this one:

Gen 1:3 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! Context (NET)

The scientists don't tell us why the big bang happened. They leave out the part about God. God is beyond their ken. Moses tells us about light, which is a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The rest of the electromagnetic spectrum was beyond his ken.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

What happens if you attach the Bible to an idea and that idea becomes known to be wrong?

Whoops. Could a moderator fix the end quote, please?

I'm unaware of any such thing. But that doesn't mean much. I haven't followed trends in science for over forty years. I did mention previously that the findings of science are provisional, subject to be revised in the light of new evidence. I'll just let the new assertions make their way through the peer review process and gradually filter down to the popular level.

In the meantime, I'm not going to fret about it, one way or the other.

I'm much more concerned about where the scientific community stands regarding climate change. And there, I'm getting wildly conflicting reports, depending on which sources I consult.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.