9 comments

• 

  Micah

  1 year ago

  you mean, the Bible is sometimes correct in its history.....not all archeology is as helpful as you might think in proving that the OT was written like an history textbook. Of course, it wasn't meant to be a history textbook, or a science textbook for that matter, so that's no problem, but still.
  reply
• 

  svandyke

  1 year ago

  Please educate me where the Bible is NOT correct in it's history. (And that's not sarcastic...really where is the history of the Bible wrong?)
  "not all archeology is as helpful as you might think in proving that the OT was written like an history textbook"
  I don't think that was the point I was making...I never said that the OT was written like a textbook, just making the point that the history CONTAINED in the OT is again proven to be true thousands of years later.
  
  And I agree, the Bible "was not meant to be a ...textbook," but nevertheless, the history and the science of the Bible is true.
  reply
• 

  Micah

  1 year ago

  Well, a comparison of Kings and Chronicles will indicate some discrepancies between the OT's own telling of history. There are actually 2 creation accounts in Genesis, and they don't necessarily line up. I think it's expecting too much, though, to think that it all lines up and makes sense--it's the collected testimony and witness of a people who had a special relationship with God; its sense of "history" is different than our own modern senses of history. On the other hand, there is, as you are pointing out here, plenty of reason to think that many of the things that are told in the OT did in fact happen.
  
  I think, however, it's incorrect to assert that there is any "science" in the OT. "Science" as we understand it is a thoroughly modern (read: Modern) concept, and I think even basing the definition on a classicist sense still doesn't work. The creation account is not science, isn't meant to be read as science, should not be forced into the category of science. I'm postmodern enough to realize that we cannot understand what the "authors meant" when Genesis was written and edited; I think, though, we can free the text from having to perform as a science book. It's not; and if it was, given that there are two different accounts of creation, it wouldn't be a very good one.
  
  Which is a good thing, and why I mention it. As a testimony to God's creative imagination, Genesis is powerful and moving. Given that "science" has a tendancy to be a false God, I say we free Genesis from its grasp, and read it in a way that speaks far more authoritatively about God's own nature.
  reply
• 

  svandyke

  1 year ago

  Let me clarify by what I mean by science:
  
  The creation of the earth: geology, biology, astronomy.
  the creation of man: biology and anthropology
  The Flood: paleontology and geology.....and all that's contained in the first book.
  
  And I know you disagree, but for the record, I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God and "Two Creation Accounts" are easily explained and documented by many scholars and you know this, just as the same for the accounts of Kings and Chronicles....
  
  It just comes down to what you believe. And I have no problem with any of that (your beliefs), but here's the issue....
  If we, as Christians, say to unbelievers...
  "Oh yeah the history and the science of the Bible are wrong, but trust it on the spiritual stuff....you know, Jesus and his resurrection...." I think it hampers our witness and misleads and confuses people that are seeking the truth.
  reply
• 

  Micah

  1 year ago

  I think one of the problems I have with your argument is the suggestion that we are supposed to say anything at all to "unbelievers." We are supposed to love them. Furthermore, the distinction between "spiritual" stuff and "history and science" is a false one; that was my point. The Bible competently describes the nature of God's own life without an iota of any of the sciences you mentioned; there is no biology in the bible, there is no paleontology in the Bible, there is no geology in the bible. In fact, these things are just constructs used to more effectively help us understand the physical world, and they have only existed for a few hundred years! The authors of Genesis would have never made a distinction between any of those things, and could not have made such a distinction. My larger point is that we don't have to be afraid of that.
  
  Re: inerrancy. I have always maintained that those who want to talk about inerrancy bear the burden of proof. It is an extra-biblical category; it does not exist anywhere in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, and it tends to disregard the long process by which the Orthodox church decided to include which books into the canon. So, again: those who wish to apply an extra biblical concept to the writings of the bible in order to prove that the bible alone (and no extra-biblical concepts) is sufficient bear the burden of proof and logic.
  reply
• 

  svandyke

  1 year ago

  sheesh...semantics. never get into a discussion about what you believe with a theologian....just love them
  reply
• 

  Micah

  1 year ago

  to love someone is to take seriously what they say.....:)
  reply
• 

  svandyke

  1 year ago

  or love them in spite of what they say ;)
  reply
• 

  Micah

  1 year ago

  ha ha. good point....
  reply