Science contradicts the Bible, doesn't it?
Well, it depends what we mean. If you mean stuff like the theory of evolution and radioactivity disproves an ultra- literal reading of Genesis, because it shows that the world is 4.5 billion years, or that death occured before the emergence of humans, then maybe yes.
But let's be serious here. Ignoring arguments from well-meaning creationist or intelligent design proponents (their arguments are handled in my science blog in the link to the right), we cannot expect the Bible to be scientifically accurate. After all, the Bible was written before science (as a field) was formalised. We cannot expect Biblical authors to have written Scripture to be scientifically accurate or that God to speak to the authors in a scientific language they did not understand. Besides, showing one interpretation of the Bible is wrong does not imply (a) that all interpretations are wrong or (b) the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God (Giberson, 2009).
Wait a minute.. wouldn't making scientific predictions make the Bible more like the Word of God?
Atheist journalist Sam Harris (2006) takes an aspect of the Bible (prophecy) said that if the Bible was really the Word of God, it would have predicted the coming of some scientific discovery such as the internet.
And I must admit, his argument sounds compelling. After all, such a prediction would be beyond men of that time of revelation (when God's Word came down). And since no men can reasonably come up with a such a far-fetched idea at that time, only God would have told them. Thus it would be a convincing proof of God.
However, what Harris fails to consider is about all the people between the time of revelation and the time of the scientific discovery. If the Bible stated a scientific fact that would be discovered only many, many years later, then what of the people who rejected the Bible based on the scientific views of that day (Glover, 2009)?
Fine, you say we can't expect the Bible to be scientific, then how we should read it?
In context. Or as Glover (2009) eloquently puts it, "through ancient eyes". Consider this, Genesis was written by Moses (most likely) 6000 years ago. Would Moses, who wrote Genesis, understand evolution by natural selection if told?
The understanding of the origin of the world at that time was based on Egyptian (and probably other Eastern) mythology of that time. So the best way to deliver a message was to use that context. So the best way to study the Genesis, is to compare Genesis with the origin stories of other cultures.
OK, that would make the most sense for the people at the time for revelation. What about the people now?
To be honest, I don't know. Would it be better if God sent a new book down? I only know that it is unlikely that He would (Revelation 22:18-19). Ultimately, we do have the benefit of hindsight, which enables us to read the Bible in the comntext, it deserves to be read in.
References
Giberson, K. (2009) Saving Darwin
Glover, G.J. (2009) Beyond The Firmament
Harris, S. (2006) Letter to a Christian Nation
1 comment:
With all due respect, the Bible is not scientifically inaccurate. It is your understanding that is inaccurate if you think the Bible is inaccurate. The Bible is the "WORD OF GOD",the "highest law", "the Gospel Truth", "the plan of the Creator" and the Creator controls EVEN the atoms of the pages of the BIBLE(book)that is at your house! It is the FINAL AUTHORITY BOOK-period Zero exceptions. The "book" at YOUR house that YOU read that says "HOLY BIBLE" that is the one God wants YOU to have... that is 'why' it is at your house FOR you. He controlled EVEN getting it there! Got that? Re: Rev 22:18-19 yeppy! He says what he meant there and he DOES mean what he said there too! Rev 22:18-19 IS the Word of God on the matter regarding the book at YOUR house.
Post a Comment