primeval cosmology & inspiration or inerrancy of scriptu

Post by **_Rick_C** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:44 pm

oO, almost time for The Narrow Path radio show! BBL

Post by **_Rick_C** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:56 pm

Here's Martin Luther's view of "Genesis & Science" (as it were)....

Frontpiece from Martin Luther's translation of the Bible
(Wittenberg, Germany: Hans Lufft, 1534)

By this time the world was seen as "spherical" anyway....

Post by **_mattrose** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:27 pm

I think most of the examples used to 'prove' that biblical writers were in error regarding cosmology utilize bad hermeneutics. As the original poster mentioned, many/most of these are meant poetically. Nobody would accuse a modern day person of having bad cosmology simply b/c he tells his girlfriend he'd walk to the ends of the earth for her.

Further, there is evidence in the Old Testament that the writers were quite ahead of their time in cosmological manners, suggesting divine aid. For example.

Job 26:7 He...hangeth the earth upon nothing
Isaiah 40:22 he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth

Those 2 passages suggest that the biblical writers knew the earth was suspended in space (disagreeing with other ancient cosmologies) and that it was spherical, not flat ('circle' - they had no word for sphere).

Other errors, I think, have to do with people misunderstanding the basic principle that the Bible does not endorse everything that it records. Just because a character in the Bible said something with scientific ramifications doesn't imply God was endorsing their statement scientifically.

Regarding the 'waters above', I know many people would think me silly, but my cosmology includes the possibility that the universe is surrounded by ice as per Dr. Russell Humphreys.

Post by **_Paidion** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:21 pm

I've never thought that the phrase "the circle of the earth" implies that the earth is a sphere. It could simply mean "circle" as in pie plate ---- a giant pie plate supported by a giant tortoise.

However, in one of the second century writings I've read, it was stated that the moon was another world like the earth. That statement is a far cry from believing it to be a hole that let's the light of heaven shine through. Many moderns seem to think that the latter was the current view in those days.

Post by **_Homer** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:01 pm

So if there was no "first Adam" there could not be a "second Adam"! Hmm.

It is interesting that the scientific community scoffs at a world wide flood - there isn't enough water, you know. Yet they would have us believe the features of Mars were shaped by floods. Wonder where that water went.

Post by **_Rick_C** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:33 am

Thanx Pete (thrombomodulin) for linking the image. I have this "dinosaur" for a computer! (not to go into "When were the dinosaurs?" or anything like that...not right now anyway), lol.
bbl, ty, tc
Rick

P.S. Nice fish.

Post by **_JC** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:22 pm

I'm a simple man and therefore have a tendency to apply a common sense approach to most things. The views I express below are by no means original, but are simply my thoughts as a (poorly paid) film writer. I mention that only because I deal in words and words are what we're discussing.

The bible is literature. As such, it must be understood as literature. Some literature is historical, some is poetic and allegorical. The bible contains many different forms of writing and is, therefore, often difficult to understand when it comes to deciding whether a passage is allegorical or historical/factual. Also, at times, the bible mixes poetic language or exaggerated expressions (Jesus was fond of hyperbole) with stories that are meant to be taken as historical. These are sometimes easy to identify, but not always.

So what is my lazy-man approach? To me, everything starts with Jesus. I start with the assumption that Jesus' words were accurately recorded, if not in exact wording then in meaning. Then I look at how Jesus (and by extension, his apostles) used and quoted the scriptures. This only applies to the Old Testament, granted, but it's a great key for understanding their thought process.

Paul told Timothy that everything he needed to know for life and godliness can be found in the scriptures (Old Testament). We start with Jesus as the Christ and everything in the Old Testament is then interpreted through this grid. I believe the words of Jesus hold great significance and the bible can only be interprepted in such a way as to agree with Christ's plain teachings. Some will certainly call this a cop-out but I haven't found a better approach.

Christ sometimes taught using made-up stories (parables) and other times he spoke of Old Testament characters (Adam, Noah) in such a way that would only have significance if they were real historical people. He also used emphatic language and hyperbole to make a strong point, just as David did in the Psalms. Jesus also used apocolyptic imagery which is simply the language of symbols. The prophets of the Old Testament did this as well.

If you read the Old Testament dry, much of it sounds like a nonsensical cluster of bizarre and random stories. When read in light of Christ's own words, the meaning of the Old Testament begins to surface. The writers of the Old Testament didn't even understand what they were writing at times because it was only the first two acts in a 3-act story.

In the movie, "The Sixth Sense," Malcom sees the world a certain way and it doesn't make a lot of sense to him. At the end of the movie we (and Malcom) learn that he's been dead the whole time and the boy he thinks he's helping is actually the one helping him. The only character in the story who knew what was going on the whole time was the helpless, tormented little boy. What's the point of this comparison? Things are best understood when one knows the ending. Jesus is the ending (in terms of authority and knowledge) and therefore the Old Testament can only be rightly understood in light of him.

Sorry for the long ramble.