primeval cosmology & inspiration or inerrancy of scriptu

[_thrombomodulin]

Many bible scholars contend that the biblical authors believed in a primative cosmology. For example, Lawrence Boadt holds this view. A depicition of the alleged ancient cosmology from Peter Enns' book "Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament" is shown below. Numerous bible verses have been used to support the belief that the biblical authors held such a cosmological view. Namely verses that have phrases such as "the floodgates of heaven", "the ends (or corners) of the earth", "The foundations of the earth", "the pillars of heaven", "they sky will be rolled up", "to the lowest part of Sheol", "The world...cannot be moved", "can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?", Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, etc, etc. Sometimes these phrases are in a poetic context, and in other cases they are not.

This assertion presents a serious problem in regard to the inspiration of scripture. If the biblical authors teach a cosmology like this through the scriptures, then the scriptures teach error at least in the area of "science". My question is how should this attack against the innerancy of the scriptures be answered, or how should the inerrancy/inspiration of scripture be understood?

Either the biblical authors did or did not believe in any given aspect of this cosmology. Therefore, two options follow regarding the innerancy of scripture:

Option #1

One could defend inerrancy based on the view that the biblical authors generally did not have an incorrect understanding of the particular aspects of the cosmology depicted in the image below. If so, then one who defends the inerrancy of scripture must affirm both of the following propositions. This position seems to be a difficult position to take for lack of evidence that shows the ancient Hebrews or biblical authors had a correct understanding of these aspects of the cosmology.

(A) The biblical authors knew the primeval cosmology was wrong when they were writing the scripture. The authors, nevertheless, almost always chose figurative language when describing physical aspects of the world instead of literal language.

(B) The ancient Hebrews were advanced scientifically far ahead of what is known of other ancient civilizations. No historical records, however, exist that acknowledge this advancement either inside or outside of ancient Hebrew civilization.

Option #2

One could agree that the biblical authors generally believed in the aspects of the depicted primeval cosmology. If this is true, then the applicability of a basic hermenutic principal must be considered.

(A) The hermenutic principle that "the meaning the author intended is the true meaning" is not valid. The biblical authors had in mind, and indeed may have believed that they were describing the world literally with respect to the features of the primeval cosmology. Nevertheless, God prevented the writings from being such direct statements that they contradict a modern understanding of cosmology. Therefore, the scripture remains inerrant. The authors of the scripture, however, would presumably been wrong about how they understood their words.

(B) The hermenutic principle that "the meaning the author intended is the true meaning" is valid. The biblical authors did have a primeval cosmology in mind when they were writing the scripture. Thus, the biblical authors would have understood the words of scripture, that they themselves wrote, to be describing features of the cosmology shown below. However, the primeval cosmology is wrong. Therefore, the scripture is wrong in regard to scientific matters. Thus, God appearently does not consider it important to correct the scientific misunderstandings of the authors or their writings. Therefore, if the Bible is wrong about scientific matters at one point, it may well be wrong at others. Some extend this line of reasoning to concluded that Genesis 1-11 is neither scientifically nor historically reliable. Rather, the Genesis account only reflects the scientifically incorrect views of Moses and the ancient Hebrews of how the world came to be.

Update: I saw someone reported trouble with such a big image, so I've switched the picture out for the URL only.

http://www.annarborvineyard.org/donscor ... mology.jpg

Pete

[Guest]

Or...

Maybe the Bible was never intended to provide scientific information. It was written by pre-scientific people about their revelation of God. To try to apply scripture (such as Genesis 1) to scientific questions (such as cosmology) is a misapplication. The Bible is inerrent, in the sense that what it reveals about God is absolutely true, but we tend to be incredibly errent in how we misinterpret and misapply scripture.

[_thrombomodulin]

Thanks for your reply. My concern is that if the bible errors in regard to scientific matters, then this will eventually lead to the conclusion that there are errors in its record of history. Following from this, if there are historical errors then the conclusion may follow that there theological errors. For example, I Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 seem to require a literal history with respect to the man named Adam.

If the correct position to take is that the scientific views given in the bible are merely those of the author (not inspired), then on what basis can one discern which information in the bible is correct and which is not? For example, in the first few chapters of Genesis there are many “scientific” details – for example, item X was created on day Y, or with respect to the flood that the waters covered the whole earth. Could these statements be technically incorrect views of the biblical authors? If so, it would seem to follow that most debates about the creation account are perhaps irrelevant since the information in Genesis 1, etc,. is not reliable. That is, the information is simply the incorrect views of the author.

[Guest]

If the correct position to take is that the scientific views given in the bible are merely those of the author (not inspired), then on what basis can one discern which information in the bible is correct and which is not? For example, in the first few chapters of Genesis there are many “scientific” details – for example, item X was created on day Y, or with respect to the flood that the waters covered the whole earth. Could these statements be technically incorrect views of the biblical authors?

The analogy I like to use is that of the story of the boy who cried wolf. We all know the story, but is it based on historical fact? If we could prove that the events in the story never actually took place, would it make the story any less true in the sense that it conveys truth? My point is that we accept the story of the boy who cried wolf as a fable and, as such, we understand its intrinsic value to be based not on the historical facts it contains but on the moral lesson (or truth) it conveys.

Likewise, if we reduce the Bible to a collection of technical facts then we end up in a quandary: Either we struggle with trying to reconcile fact X and fact Y with what we (in a post-scientific world) know of the universe, or we take the fundamentalist approach: stick our fingers in our ears, say "la, la, la" really loud, and try to ignore science (and thus live in a false dichotomy).

If we accept the Bible in its own context, not trying to force it into ours, we see that it contains historical narrative (sometimes colored by the perspective of the chroniclers), poetry, wise sayings, myth (by which I mean a story that is intended to convey truths and cultural identity without necessary being completely "factual"), drama (such as Job - by which I mean a story that is intended to convey lessons by observing the journey of a person and the growth they experience in the course of that journey), prophetic oracles (which are primarily concerned with the behavior of those to whom the oracle was originally addressed), etc.

Seeing the Bible in this way, imho, causes it to spring to life as a multi-dimensional, multi-colored, living text - rather than a flat book of asserted propositions which are built upon each other like a house of cards. I've heard it said by the "young earth", "six day" creationists that if you take away their literal interpretation of Genesis 1 then the entire authority of the Bible; and therefore the whole of Christianity; crumbles. What they're really saying is that their whole system of approaching the Bible and Christianity crumbles.

I believe that the early Genesis stories (Creation/Fall/Cain and Abel/Flood/Tower of Babel, etc.) were originally written as myths and understood to be mythical. The stories served their intended purpose and were passed down from generation to generation. They came to be regarded as historical narrative, in addition to their mythic use (and again, by “mythic” I mean a story that is intended to convey cultural identity and moral truths). Since there was no compelling competing creation story, there would be no reason not to use Genesis as such.

Additionally, we tend (as I have just done) to project our modern literary categories and their guidelines back onto ancient texts. We expect historical narrative to be completely factual. We get upset when Dan Brown claims that the Da Vinci Code is factual and then find out that it’s full of “inaccuracies” (to be kind). We’re upset because Mr. Brown has muddied the waters between fiction and fact. We expect him to follow the rules and his failure to do so strikes us as disingenuous and/or deceptive (or at least misguided). In regard to the Bible, however, we forget that our classifications of literary forms did not exist back then. The farther back we go, the “fuzzier” things seem to get in terms of adherence to a particular genre.

Your question shows a common presupposition, which is perhaps flawed, when you refer to "the scientific views given in the bible". The writers of the Bible (especially the Old Testament) and the original hearers were pre-scientific. To try to impose our post-scientific worldview upon their writings is a form of eisegesis. Something we so easily lose site of is that a pre-scientific people like the ancient Hebrews would not have the same problems we do with accepting the Genesis story of creation, fall, etc. They had no alternative, competing views to compare theirs with other than the creation myths of other cultures/religions. Conversely, a scientific view of the world would be completely off their radar (and would remain so for a few thousand years).

Did Paul, Luke, et al believe the Genesis account to be historical? Probably. They had no reason not to, since there was no alternative way of viewing the world's creation other than other creation myths. We live in a very different context however, where the Biblical creation story must be juxtaposed against what we know through scientific observation.

So, for example, the story of the fall, at its heart, provides a compelling picture of what we all know to be true: that the world is not as it should be and that, although we know right from wrong, we often do wrong.

If so, it would seem to follow that most debates about the creation account are perhaps irrelevant since the information in Genesis 1, etc,. is not reliable. That is, the information is simply the incorrect views of the author.

I would agree that debates about the scientific value of Genesis 1 are irrelevant. But the information in Genesis 1 is only unreliable if one attempts to use it as scientific data, in which case I think one is using it in a way that was never intended by the author. If, however, one looks at the context of the people to whom Genesis 1 was originally written and understands it within that context, it is completely reliable.

This reminds me of another analogy: A very wealthy man went to see a performance by a world famous dancer. As he watched the performance he was deeply moved, to the point that after the show he used his influence to gain access backstage and be introduced to the dancer. Upon meeting her he gushed, "That was the most amazing and moving performance I have ever seen. Please, would you explain to me the meaning of the dance?" To which she replied, "Sir, if I could explain it in words, I wouldn't have to dance it."

[Guest]

Good thread...but I had to use "show no images" (with my Firefox browser) to be able to read it easier.

[Guest]

I'm sure thrombomodulin didn't intend this.

[Guest]

I'm posting separate posts to see if this will go to page 2.

[Guest]

There's a related thread here:
Young Earth Vs. ancient Earth - where do u stand?

[Guest]

In that (above) thread I chimed in with some of my views which seem basically the same as Mort's.

Should we start a new thread? I feel silly, lol

[Guest]

I used to post @ Belefnet a lot.
Topics tend to repeat themselves on forums.
I've seen Steve Gregg "link to" his past posts here or copied & pasted excerpts.

Where's Paul Harvey when you need him?

"Page two."