Another Schaeffer quote that I love: 'There's only one reason to believe Christianity. Because it's true.'

I'm excited about seeing apologetics on the Rebelution!
Karen K | 09.23.05 - 6:08 pm | #

Brett, just a quick comment on the scientific examples you used to show that science supports the Bible.

I am really wary of using 2 Peter 3:11-12 to suggest that the Bible is saying elements can melt. I don't think Peter had any concept of "elements" in the modern scientific sense of the word; his intended meaning was that the earth will be destroyed, not that scientific elements will melt. Since the Bible wasn't exactly addressing the scientific issue you raised, I don't think it is quite fair to list this as an instance of science "proving" the Bible true.
J | Homepage | 09.23.05 - 6:25 pm | #

J: Thank you for your concern. I had looked up the Greek root of the word elements and it literally means "base, fundamental, constituent." Which seems to imply elements as we understand them.

However, you might have insight into the passage that I don't have.

Nevertheless, I would encourage you to make sure that your opinion that Paul isn't referring to "scientific elements" doesn't stem from the secular/sacred split that our culture pushes on us. To make the point in the form of a question: "Does the idea that Scripture isn't accurately scientific (or only as scientific as the time in which the writers lived) stem from Scripture itself or from the subtle influence of opposing philosophies?"

I would love it if more people joined in discussing this question.
Brett Harris | Homepage | 09.23.05 - 6:51 pm | #

Hmm...I don't really disagree with your definition, although it is relevant to note that none of the other instances in the New Testament of that Greek word for "element" mean anything like a scientific element.

But on to your more important question, about the secular/sacred split in our culture: Your point is well taken.

However, I still think it is somewhat illogical to read modern scientific insights into Scripture. Bible writers simply did not have our understanding of science, so it makes no sense that they would have written in light of our current understanding. I mean, why should we suppose Peter would know that elements would melt? That would require either that God gave Peter advanced scientific knowledge, OR that God inspired Peter to write something that he couldn't have understood. I see no good reason to suppose that either of those are true. (Note: I'm not implying here that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate; I just mean I don't see any reason to treat Bible writers as if they had 21st century scientific insights.)

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there is nothing in the 2 Peter passage to suggest that Peter was declaring that scientific elements can melt. In context, he is clearly speaking about the fact that the heavens and the earth will be destroyed.

In general, I guess, your reading of 2 Peter 3 seems to ignore the fact that Peter's real point was theological and prophetic, not scientific. I am not denying the Bible's relevance to science, but I don't think it makes sense to read this as a scientific text when Peter wasn't making a scientific point. Does that make any sense?
J | Homepage | 09.23.05 - 7:58 pm | #

Wow! Wonderful response! I really appreciate your professional (yet effective) rebuttal. All of your points are well taken. I admit that I was initially dumbfounded, not sure how to respond. However, here’s what I’ve figured out (and this is the only reason I’m not being able to fully agree with you):

For your position to be true it requires that a writer of Scripture couldn’t ever, at anytime, write anything that was more scientifically advanced than his time, because, as you argue, it would require that God granted him advanced scientific knowledge or that he was writing something he didn’t understand.

If this is the case then my bloodletting example is also invalid, since, for the writer to say that the “life of the flesh is in the blood” was contrary to a practice that was only completely abandoned in the early 20th century.

Personally, I don’t think it is unrealistic for us to assume that God granted the writers of Scripture advanced scientific knowledge. Wasn’t He already granting them advanced spiritual knowledge? I know you agree with my point about the secular/sacred, science/superstition, fact/faith split that our culture embraces, but I think it is possible for one part of our minds to agree while another part subconsciously operates in a different system. Otherwise, why would we have a problem believing that God, the Creator of the universe, would communicate advanced scientific knowledge to the writers of Scripture and subsequently, to us, the readers of Scripture? Why does that sound strange to us, except that we've created a false barrier between science and faith?

Furthermore, it is also not unrealistic to assume that the writers wrote about things they did not understand. This is supported by the prophets of the Old Testament. For example, in 1 Peter 1:10-11 the writer speaks of the prophets who prohesied regarding the coming salvation through Jesus Christ. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary explains these verses by saying the following:

“The prophets not only spoke to the situation of their contemporaries, but they also spoke of the longed-for messianic times. In predicting the future, they did not always understand their utterances. The clearest example is Daniel and his visions (Daniel 8:27).”

Daniel 8:27 says, “And I, Daniel was overcome and lay sick for some days. Then I rose and went about the king’s business, but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it.”

In conclusion, I have such a great respect for you, J. I hope we can reach an agreement on this issue, but even if we don’t I really respect your professional and logical demeanor.

Thanks.
Brett Harris | Homepage | 09.23.05 - 9:20 pm | #

I don't know if anyone brought up this point or not, but I was reminded of 2 Peter 1:21, where it says this:

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Thanks for the response! Good points. :-) Here are my thoughts in reply:

It is true that the writers of Scripture sometimes give information that is more scientifically advanced than their time. One example, I think, is the Levitical laws about diet and health. I believe those are an instance of God giving scientifically advanced information that the Israelites wouldn’t otherwise have known.

However, I think it is important to bear in mind that the Bible is primarily for our spiritual instruction, not our scientific instruction. (Again, don’t misunderstand—I fully believe the Bible has important implications for science, and I don’t believe the Bible can be separated from science at all. But it remains true that the Bible is primarily spiritual, and not scientific.) Because of that, I think we should assume advanced scientific revelation is the exception and not the rule in Scripture.

The reason I don’t think 2 Peter is one of those exceptions is because there is nothing in context to indicate that Peter is making a scientific statement. As I said before, context indicates that his point is theological and prophetic, not scientific. In such a theological setting, it would be kind of odd for Peter to give a random scientific insight as narrow and detailed as the fact that elements can burn.

Moreover, I don’t think there is anything in this chapter that indicates God has given Peter any special revelation to write this passage. It’s true that Peter is predicting future events, thus he must have gotten the information from God; however, he is not necessarily communicating a distinctly new vision—he could easily have gotten this prophetic information from Christ’s teachings while He was still on earth. In other words, I’m not able to find any reason to suppose that Peter is writing based on any specially revealed knowledge—especially scientific knowledge. (This is very different from, say, Leviticus, where Moses is supposed to be recording commands that he got straight from God, or Daniel, where the prophet was clearly being given a new vision.)

Last point: You said you don’t find it unlikely that God would give advanced scientific knowledge, considering He was giving advanced spiritual knowledge. That could be true, but consider this: I’m not sure we really see any obvious instances where God actually gave advanced scientific knowledge of the kind that you imply Peter had.

In Leviticus, for example, God gave specific laws and principles that are based on advanced scientific understanding, but I see no reason to conclude that the Israelites actually had that understanding. They were just supposed to do as God told them, without having a clue about the science behind it. Your interpretation of 2 Peter, on the other hand, would seem to require that Peter actually understood the modern concept of scientific elements, because you suggest that he was using the word “elements” in the precise modern scientific
J | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 6:41 am | #

...sense. (Now, true, it could be that he was making these scientific statements without understanding what he was talking about, but what evidence is there that he did so? And how then could we know this was actually meant to be a scientific statement in the first place?)

Whew! Ok, I hope I actually made sense here. I’m confusing myself at this point, which is not a good sign. :-P

Anyway, I don’t in the least want to undermine what you’re doing on your blog. I love reading your articles, and they are a rich blessing. Keep up the good work! :-)
J | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 6:44 am | #

question: where do u draw the line between understanding the bible and fundamentalism?

do you think agnostics can find salvation, even if they dont go to church?
elien | 09.24.05 - 6:56 am | #

Excellent rebuttal again, J. Thanks for keeping this discussion so civil. You’re awesome.

Here we go: I completely agree that the Bible is primarily a book of spiritual revelation. However, we must not separate God’s Word from God Himself. While we think of God as being primarily spiritual we must also understand that He, more than any other being, is completely scientific. If He is the Creator of the universe His knowledge and understanding of scientific fact would be infinite.

But here’s the big issue: what is your opinion of divine inspiration? I believe that for the Bible to be divinely inspired means that God, through the Holy Spirit spoke through the writers of Scripture and kept them from error in fact, doctrine, or judgment. (Dr. Wayne Grudem’s, “Systematic Theology”)

That means that when Peter is writing about the return of Christ (a future event) and of catastrophic occurrences (the elements being consumed with fire and melting with intense heat) God Himself was ensuring that Peter was kept from from error in fact, doctrine, or judgment.

And so the question is: Would God then allow Peter to write something that was scientifically inaccurate and/or only as advanced as the time in which Peter lived, OR is it possible that the Creator of the universe was writing not only for that present time but for all of future time as well? Is it possible that the One with infinite knowledge of science could, regardless of the writers’ scientific knowledge or inner purpose in writing, ensure that His primarily spiritual book would also be 100% accurate scientifically?

I don’t find that much of a stretch to believe. Why would God allow Peter to write something scientifically inaccurate? Since God knew that mankind would critique the Bible according to science what better way to prove its validity than for it to be scientifically advanced even beyond what modern scientists have discovered?

For this reason I believe the following: Though the Bible is primarily a book of spiritual revelation, every time it does make a scientific reference it is 100% accurate, providing we interprete it correctly.

I think your argument that the context to doesn’t allow for a scientific statement should be discarded because there is never a scientific context anywhere in the Bible. Even the dietary laws of the Old Testament were made in the context of consecration unto God, and were not explained scientifically.

Before I move on, there is one last question I have to ask: If Peter is not referring to elements as we understand them, what is he referring to? Keeping in mind that he says that these elements are going to “melt” AND that the Greek root implies that these are constituent elements, it would seem that he could only be referring to the most basic elements as they were understood in his time (earth, air, fire, and water) or to the most basic elements as they are understood today. In other words, Peter was either making a scientifically...
Brett Harris | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 9:45 am | #

... accurate statement or he was making a scientifically inaccurate statement. There is no middle ground.

I think I can accept your other arguments, but I don’t think they require that Peter’s statement was non-scientific. It might be more accurate to assume that Peter was writing things he did not fully understand, since you don’t see evidence that he was granted special revelation. What’s important to remember is, regardless of visions or direct revelation from God, 2 Peter was divinely inspired! It was kept free from error by the Creator of the universe.

Finally, the fact that Peter used the word “elements” in their modern sense does not require that he understood elements in their modern sense. I’ve never enjoyed divine inspiration of my writing, but I could expect that it would include instances of exclaiming: “Where did that come from?!?” Remember, though Peter is not literally prophesying, the same God that led the prophets to speak of things they didn’t fully understand was leading Peter write words that would stand the test of time. Testifying that the God of Scripture is the God of the created universe.

I think that covers everything. Thanks again! Please, don’t feel as if you are undermining anything we’re trying to do. Polite and civil discussion (along with a teachable attitude) are exactly what we want. You fulfill all of those “requirements!” God bless you!
Brett Harris | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 9:47 am | #

Alex King: Excellent point. Thanks for contributing. I hadn't thought of using 2 Peter 1:21, but it really makes the point!

Elien: If fundamentalism simply means that we believe the Bible to be the Word of God, then I don't think any line needs to be drawn (perhaps I misunderstand your question?).

But that doesn't mean we accept the Bible as God's Word completely through faith (though faith is necessary). There are many logical and empirical reasons to accept the Bible as divinely inspired. We will try to get a post up on that subject next week.

As to your other question, I must ask you a question before I can answer that: What is salvation? What does that mean to you?

I’d love to hear back from you!
Brett Harris | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 9:50 am | #

An interesting side point (if I may raise it), is whether or not scientific statements in the Bible are scientifically usable. While as you said, the Bible is both spiritually and scientifically inerrant, could the scientific truth - not talking about principles based on it, like in Leviticus - actually be applied to life?

For example, was there anyone speaking out against venesection, with a biblical argument, when it was approved by "science"? Could Christian scientists who believed the Bible have figured out the nuclear fission before its time? And should such scientists be actively looking for these truths? Just an interesting thought.
Alex King | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 11:54 am | #

Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest scientist of all time, fel that way, Alex. At one point in his life, he spent as much time studying Scripture as he did working on physics.
Karen K | 09.24.05 - 12:10 pm | #

Good points, Brett! You're definitely making my little brain work hard. ;-)

Ok, here goes: My understanding of divine inspiration is that God inspired men and directed their minds, but that it was ultimately men who spoke, not God (as per 2 Peter 1:21). I think it is important not to forget this human element. The point is not that this makes the Bible fallible, but rather that God works through our human understanding and our human limitations. He does not, as a general rule, short circuit our own human thinking processes.

The problem with reading science into such statements as this one in 2 Peter is that it seems like grasping at straws. If you’re going to apply a standard of scientific literalness there, I would think you’d need to apply that same standard to all texts in the Bible. This is difficult, since there are so many statements in the Bible that would be wrong if taken in a literal, scientific sense.

In other words, our “proof texts” showing modern scientific insight in the Bible arise out of the fact that we pick and choose which statements to treat as scientific. This is kind of inconsistent, and means that the “proof” just isn’t persuasive. There are so many statements that aren’t accurate in a modern sense that it seems like meaningless coincidence when we find one that is “scientifically accurate.”

As an illustration of the problem here, perhaps it might help to reference the showdown between Galileo and the Catholic Church in the 17th century. To hone in on one very specific point of the conflict, Galileo said the earth revolved around the sun, but the Church insisted this could not be, because Scripture said otherwise. One of the important biblical references to which they appealed was the story of Joshua and his long day. The biblical account specifically says the sun stood still; therefore, it must be that the sun revolved around the earth, and not the earth around the sun (or so the reasoning went). They reasoned in the same way you’re doing, and assumed that any such statement has to be scientifically accurate, for God would preserve Scripture from having any errors or perpetuating any inaccurate scientific thinking.

I think it is safe to say their reasoning was flawed—the long day was (apparently) not caused by the sun literally standing still. Thus, this statement is apparently not scientifically accurate. But that doesn’t mean the Bible truly is inaccurate, and it doesn’t mean Scripture perpetuated scientific falsehoods. Rather, it just indicates that the writer described things the way they appeared, without meaning to make any sort of authoritative scientific statement.

At any rate, I think this example demonstrates the danger of trying to read science into Scripture. Often, seemingly “scientific” biblical statements are scientifically wrong—because they weren’t ever meant as scientific statements in the first place.

Moving on to your claim that Peter must have been referring either to elements i
J | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 10:05 pm | #

...in our modern sense, or to the four elements of Greek understanding, and therefore was either scientifically right or scientifically wrong:

In Peter’s time, there was no way of conveying the concept of “elements” in our narrow, modern sense of the word, because no such understanding existed at the time. So, to draw a narrow modern scientific interpretation from this text is to foist a 21st century English meaning on a first century Greek term. This is a very problematic exegetical philosophy to adopt on a broad scale.

This does not mean, however, that Peter was scientifically wrong. There is middle ground here, if we assume that Peter wasn’t using the word “elements” in a scientific sense at all. He wasn’t using it in the modern scientific sense, nor was he using it in a 1st century scientific sense. As I said previously, none of the other New Testament instances of this word refer to elements in our modern scientific sense, but neither do they refer to the basic elements as they were understood by the Greeks (earth, air, etc.). The word meant something more like “constituent parts,” like you said. In which case, Peter was saying “the rudiments of this earth are going to melt” as a general statement, not that “all the carbon, hydrogen, potassium, etc. of this earth can and will melt.” (I think it is also very likely that he meant the part about melting in a metaphorical sense, in effort to try to convey an image of complete destruction, without meaning to actually give precise details about how that was going to occur. But I don’t really know.)
At any rate, the point is that he simply wasn’t making a statement of any scientific precision.

Consequently, it’s the type of thing where it’s very hard to say modern science has “caught up” to the Bible.

Whew! I'm a bit intellectually winded at this point, but this discussion has been very stimulating. Your responses are very thoughtful and very thought-provoking, which is a most excellent combination. :-)

And on that note, I think I'm going to call it a day. ;-)
J | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 10:07 pm | #

P.S. in response to Alex King’s question about whether or not it should be possible to actively seek out scientific truths in Scripture: My answer would be no.

Honestly, I think the statement that the life of the flesh is in the blood is so imprecise as to be mostly scientifically unusable. In a strict sense, the life of a creature is not literally in its blood. Besides that, venesection didn’t concretely go against the statement in Leviticus (the idea with bloodletting was that the body’s humors are out of balance, not that blood isn’t a carrier of life). Exactly how, then, does this text demonstrate that bloodletting is a medically unsound practice, and how could people prior to the 20th century have been able to determine that?

Similarly, I don’t think it would have been possible to figure out nuclear fission by taking a literal understanding of 2 Peter, and I also don’t think it’s productive to try and search out other such scientific truths in Scripture now. The reason is that there is no way to actively look for such truths in the Bible. As I said to Brett, the Bible makes so many statements that are not actually scientifically accurate (if taken literally) that you just can’t apply a literal scientific standard to the whole Bible and expect to come up with anything worthwhile. If we did start applying a literal, scientific standard to every text, we’d probably wind up with more situations like with Galileo and the Church. Which, I think we’d all agree, is not exactly what we’re aiming for. :-/
J | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 10:09 pm | #

Another extremely powerful rebuttal! My respect for you grows and grows.

Unfortunately, I think I'll have to put off responding until Monday, since I have church tomorrow and a science class Monday morning to prepare for.

Of course I might not be able to resist posting tomorrow sometime. We'll see.

God bless! Have a wonderful Sunday!
Brett Harris | Homepage | 09.24.05 - 11:06 pm | #

Ok, that's great by me. I have an essay to finish by tomorrow morning, so I can definitely use the time to concentrate on that without being distracted by the temptation to comment here. ;-) But I'll be looking forward to your response. :-)
J | Homepage | 09.25.05 - 3:46 pm | #

Wow, there have been a lot of interesting comments on this. Here are my thoughts, Peter might not have understood the scientific significance of his words, but they are true, nonetheless. Coincedence, or planned by the Creator? Moses might not have known that the laws concerning food and cleanliness are scientifically sound, but when people followed those laws they enjoyed health. Science later proved those laws correct. (I have specific cases, but I have no time to share them)

I believe that God wants to be our Lord in all matters of our life, including science, and I believe that mankind's study of science will go much faster if we apply knowledge given to us in the Bible.

If God really created the heavens and the earth, wouldn't he know how it all works? If all of scripture is God-breathed, then would it be surprising to find that the Bible contains scientific facts?

sidetracking: Many Psalms talk about the blessings and the knowledge of those who medidate upon and obey God's word. Is there a chance that knowledge refers to scientific knowledge as well as spiritual. It is my opinion that the blessings included good health, as good health would be the result of following God's law regarding sexual relations, what we should and shouldn't eat, touching dead bodies, etc. Many people today do not enjoy the blessing of good health, perhaps because they do not consider following the Bible, as it is often considered obsolete for anything but strictly "spiritual" matters.


By the way: Brett, I just recently "discovered" this blog, and I think it's really neat and encouraging. keep up the good work!
lana | 09.25.05 - 9:39 pm | #

Great discussion! I would like to share a few thoughts I had while reading through these comments.

Since God is the Creator of our universe, He created all of our scientific laws as well. He created them by His Word, not through our science. He remains above our science, not subject to it. As a result, Christ was able to perform miracles that defy even modern-day science. The Creation itself cannot be scientifically explained. And how can the sun standing still relative to Earth, or even moving backwards as in the case of King Hezekiah, line up with the basic laws of science?

The question I would like to raise here is: Does it really matter whether or not the passage in 2Peter lines up with science? Assuming that Creation was a miracle that cannot be scientifically proven, why couldn't the end of all things be a miracle as well? The fact that elements can melt becomes irrelevant to this passage of Scripture.

I would enjoy hearing a rebuttal of this argument. You guys are great.
Hans | 09.26.05 - 4:59 am | #

I really agree with your arguement Lana, good thinking.

Hans, I think I would (civily) disagree with your conclusion, but the arguement's so good I have no idea what to say. I'll be looking forward to what others have to say about it :-D

But you're right, many people use Jonah and the Whale Big Fish to say the Bible isn't accurate. But just like you said, does it really matter if whatever swallowed him could technically have swallowed him? It's not possible to turn water into wine - why don't they take issue with that miracles. What's a miracle if it's not impossible?

I wonder if that's part of the work when it comes to discovering scientific truths from the Bible - figuring out what's scientificly reproducable and what's a miracle.

Maybe there's a simple way to do that. For example, the verse in Leviticus isn't talking about a miracle - it's a statement.

This doesn't seem to fit with the 2 Peter example though. The destruction of the heavens seems to be a "miracle". Unless, of course, it is done with nuclear weapons, but I don't think that's what it's talking about.

*wondering how it all fits in*
Alex King | Homepage | 09.26.05 - 5:56 pm | #

The problem, Lana, doesn't revolve as much around whether or not God could reveal advanced scientific definition, but rather around what the text actually says. The 1st century Greek word Peter uses for "elements" simply did not mean the same thing as our narrow, modern, scientific definition of the word. So, as I said to Brett, if we are going to draw a narrow modern scientific interpretation from this text, it requires foisting a 21st century English meaning on a first century Greek term. I don't think we are allowed to do this. We have to read the words according to what they actually meant at the time, not according to how we would define them today.

Hans, I fully agree with you, although I can't actually figure out whether you were supporting me, or whether you were supporting Brett. ;-)
J | Homepage | 09.26.05 - 6:43 pm | #

Hey Everyone, I decided to forgo posting here today and write a blog entry instead. I hope to post a response to everyone's arguments tomorrow.

::mutters about the HUGE AMOUNT of material he's going to have to cover::
Brett Harris | Homepage | 09.26.05 - 7:35 pm | #

You know, the longer you wait, the worse it's going to get, and pretty sooon you'll never be able to catch up. ;-)
J | Homepage | 09.27.05 - 11:08 am | #

I am almost certain that this will be my last post in this discussion, being that responding keeps demanding more and more of my time. Believe it or not, Alex and I are extremely busy trying to practice in real life what we preach on our blog! ;-)

That said, I have really enjoyed this discussion, Jamie. It has been such a wonderful experience and I really respect you so much. =)

OK, here are my arguments:

POINT 1: LITERAL vs. FIGURATIVE
We should never adopt an approach that requires us to interpret all Scripture passages literally and scientifically. Nor should we commit ourselves to interpreting all of them figuratively or spiritually. Rather, our goal should be to interpret all of Scripture accurately.

This means that we must use discernment and pray for wisdom in determining which passages should be taken literally and which should be taken figuratively or phenomenologically. It is a false requirement to say that a literal and scientific interpretation of one passage requires a literal and scientific interpretation of all passages.

For example, in Joshua 10:13 when the Bible tells us that “the sun stood still,” it is intended to be taken phenomenologically (this simply means that it is described as it would appear to a viewer, rather than as it truly was). Even today we make phenomenological statements about the sun when we speak of it rising or setting.

POINT 2: WE DID NOT PICK THESE FIGHTS
You argued that it is inconsistent to pick and choose statements in Scripture to treat as scientific. I would respond that I did not choose either of the Scripture passages included in my post. Rather, both of these passages were singled out and then ridiculed by those who hoped to prove the Bible false. In other words, we are not being selective; we are merely defending the sections of Scripture that our opponents attack.

POINT 3: GALILEO & THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
First of all, this is not an accurate example of my position. Remember, I hold that there will be no conflict between the Bible and Scripture ONLY IF we possess the true scientific facts and a correct interpretation of Scripture. An example where the Catholic Church misinterpreted Scripture to refute scientific truth actually supports my position since the correct interpretation of the passage (i.e. phenomenological) does not conflict with scientific fact.

However, you may argue that by viewing Scripture as scientifically accurate we open up the door to gross misinterpretation of Scripture, just as the Catholic Church did by attempting to use Scripture as a scientific argument. This argument is good, but inaccurate. The Catholic Church was not interested in remaining faithful to Scripture’s teaching on the issue, their main objection to Galileo’s new theory stemmed from a “love affair” with the teaching of Aristotle.

Brett Harris | Homepage | 09.27.05 - 1:59 pm | #

The reason that an adoption of my position would not result in a situation similar to Galileo and the Catholic Church is that IF the Catholic Church faithfully examined the scientific facts that Galileo presented (which were convincing) and IF they had faithfully examined their interpretation of Joshua 10:13 they would have concluded that the conflict arose out of their interpretation of Scripture, not the other way around.

If you go and read the Francis Schaeffer quotation I provide in my post you would realize that my position would not result in this kind of situation.

POINT 4: SCIENTIFIC vs. SPIRITUAL MEANING:
It seems inherent in your line of reasoning that a statement must be meant spiritually and only spiritually, or scientifically and only scientifically, with no allowance for statements that simultaneously make a spiritual and scientific point.

Take the passage in question: 2 Peter 3:10, 12. We both agree that Peter is making a spiritual point here, however you seem to think that that excludes him from also making a scientific statement, despite the fact that God is just as able to grant him advance understanding of science as He is to grant him advance knowledge of the destruction of the earth—a future occurrence!

The question I’m asking is this: Since God was already giving Peter knowledge of the future, since He inspired Peter to write the words “the elements will melt,” and since the facts that elements can melt has been verified by science, what reason is there for us to conclude that this scientific confirmation of a scientific interpretation of the passage is coincidental?

To be honest, I haven’t seen any reason to reject a simultaneous spiritual/scientific interpretation of the passage other than that it would require us to do the same to all Scripture passages—a conclusion I have already shown to be false.

Indeed, your argument that Peter was a making spiritual point is not in conflict with my interpretation of the passage. Rather, the spiritual point Peter is making is complimented by a scientific interpretation of the statements “the elements will melt.”

Think about a nuclear explosion. There is nothing more devastating. Keeping in mind that the book of 2 Peter was not merely written to the people living at the time but also to all future generations, us included, doesn’t the image of nuclear devastation solidify the spiritual point Peter is making more firmly in your mind?

Brett Harris | Homepage | 09.27.05 - 2:00 pm | #

POINT 5: THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK:
Though I have never held to this position, I do concede that the Bible is not intended to be a science textbook. Its references to science are not always complete, but they are ALWAYS accurate. Upon acquiring scientific TRUTH and an ACCURATE interpretation of Scripture we will be able to conclude that, as far as it went, Scripture was accurate scientifically.

This applies to your argument that the statement “the life of the flesh is in the blood” is so imprecise as to be “scientifically unusable.” Granted, it did not go into detail. Again, it is not a textbook, but it has been proved accurate as far as it went. Though you argue that the life of the flesh isn’t technically in the blood, modern scientists do hold that “blood is the life stream of the human body” (World Book Encyclopedia). For instance, if you cut off circulation to one part of your body the flesh there dies. Therefore the statement, “the life of the flesh is in the blood” is technically accurate.

The point I want to make is that even though the book of Leviticus wasn’t thorough in addressing the issue the truth it did convey was sufficient to prevent doctors from concluding that it would somehow help their patients to drain them of their blood.

If doctors had respected the Bible’s statement, instead of ridiculing it, as was the case, bloodletting would never have occurred, regardless of their beliefs about the body’s humors, etc.

Similarly, the Bible was not intending to unveil nuclear fission. But while addressing the topic of elements it made a clear statement that elements can melt. This statement, while lacking scientific precision, was entirely accurate as far as it went, and that accuracy was no coincident.

Brett Harris | Homepage | 09.27.05 - 3:03 pm | #

POINT 6: SEEKING SCIENTIFIC TRUTH IN THE BIBLE:
In answer to Alex’s question I would have to refer to my previous point: that the Bible is not a science textbook, but is completely accurate as far as it goes. I don’t think that we can start with the Bible and come away with enough information to form a scientific theory. But still, just as in the case of nuclear fission and bloodletting it can serve a major role in directing and interpreting the discoveries we do make through scientific inquiry, and in some cases (such as bloodletting) should prevent us from adopting certain practices.

For instance, when the Book of Romans speaks of homosexuality and predicts that the result of that practice will result in a “due penalty” that afflicts their bodies. I believe that this verse, while not sufficient in itself to define and classify a new disease, did accurately predict the STD’s that originated in the homosexual community, and should have been sufficient to prevent those who wished to partake in homosexual behavior from doing so.

In conclusion, I think that’s everything I had to say. I hope it made sense. Thank you everyone who participated, especially Jamie. God bless.

NOTE: Hans, that question is ridiculously difficult to answer in the comment section. I’m afraid I don’t have time to answer it today.
Brett Harris | Homepage | 09.27.05 - 3:08 pm | #