Are scripture and science rival?
Perhaps, one of the basic reasons why we often think Bible
shouldn’t contradict with scientific discoveries or vice versa due to 2 Timothy
3:16. Most Christians believe that Bible has to be final authority on whatever
it speaks or reveals regardless of spiritual aspect, history, science, etc. The
belief of sola scriptura innovates Christians that we must always believe and
hold firm to what Bible teaches. We go for scripture on any matter even if
science is found in opposition.
The usual mind of natural people is that they believe in
scientifically proven things. Most people are fond of looking from scientific
perspective for credibility of faith and religion otherwise these are marked as
‘Blind faith’, ‘Superstition’, etc. People feel that the superiority of the scripture
can be established if they could show scientific reliability of the scripture.
E.g. the scripture foretold the Earth is spherical long ago before the actual
scientific discovery! Isa. 40:22?
However, if any scientific area seems contradicting the scripture,
either we have to go for science or the scripture. But we are taught throughout
the church history that scripture is inspired Word of God! Therefore, the
former must also be wrong! Modern debates regarding this rivalry touches
certain scientific subjects such as evolution. The book of Genesis is more than
enough to produce extreme queries (I’m pretty sure you’ll have tons of
questions right there at First chapter!).
The present generation needs to ask not just whether science
is at right lane but also whether we have really understood the scripture! The
Big Bang, evolution, Noahic flood, dinosaurs, Flat earth, etc. are frequently
objected subjects. It is an important concern whether the scripture was written
to cover all generation of people independent of time[1] or God was conveying
theological messages to his people in their own language of that time? Just
because God cannot lie and his word are everlasting truth, wouldn’t he have
also taught scientific truths to the people? Or, scientific concern wasn’t even
true appetite of the contemporary world to whom God was communicating to?[2]
There is still another challenge to consider. Even in
science itself, many fields have progressive phenomena. The discoveries
continue and today’s conclusion might be tomorrow’s myth. That is to say, the
more the discoveries keep occurring, there are even certain revisions in the
science itself. Was God then teaching something that even modern science hasn’t
reached to a firm conclusion?
Is it even possible that whatever topics we take from the
Bible and ponder our anxiety on it, was the text really referring to scientific
knowledge or something else? E.g. Eve made out of Adam’s Rib (Hebrew: tselsa
i.e. צֵלָע).
Was that ‘Rib’ associated with modern idea of cloning? Or it was something else
in meaning to the ancient author and audience?[3]
Concordism[4]: Most frequently used, it
is either an attempt to extract modern scientific information from scriptural
passages[5] or Reading modern science
in the scripture.[6]
It’s not ‘eisegesis’ nor ‘heretical teaching’ but ‘bad interpretation’[7]. However, its sarcastic to
admit that we all have been following this approach![8] E.g. Rib is the bone that
regenerates[9], Earth was covered with
massive opaque atmospheric layer due to greenhouse gases that’s why Sun, Moon
and Stars were made visible only later[10], Four corners are four
directions, the explanation of Behemoth and Leviathan sounds like dinosaurs,
etc. Does this approach helps proving the inspiration of the Bible or adds more
problems?
Reading the way original audience grasped it: This approach
teaches that ‘Framework’ is not of concern but the ‘messages’ that has been
conveyed was important aka Vehicle-Cargo approach.[11] God used the normal
understanding of the original audience to convey his theological messages to
them. Its just like small children are taught to sing: ‘Twinkle twinkle,
little star.’ Science students or any students in higher classes are pretty
sure how little stars are! But they sang the song once! So, were they deceived
by teachers? Next, if my friend is very hungry, would I explain him how
digestive system functions to produce sensation of hunger or would I take him
to any hotel for feeding? Hence, this group admits that scripture is inspired independent
of any scientific teaching embedded on it. Meanwhile, the concordist think it
makes God accommodating to false knowledge of the people and affects the inspiration
of the scripture.[12] Some
seems to be neutral on these both debates such as William Craig.
So, we have to explore both sides going deeper into
historical and cultural context of the Bible (usually this needs Biblical
theology) and we also need to check how honest innovations are done in science
field on origin, geology, cosmology, evolution, etc.[13] Can scientific findings
have any space in the scripture? Does scripture validate modern scientific
findings if it had no scientific interest and concern? Otherwise, either
science needs revision or scripture needs revising its interpretation.
[1]
Watch from 29:52: Kent Hovind OFFICIAL, Can Evolution Fit within the Bible?
Kent Hovind vs. Inspiring Philosophy 1-1-2019, You Tube: 1:36:05, https://youtu.be/8RTTt_Fblbw
[2]
Inspiring Philosophy, The Ancient Cosmos: Cultural Context of the Biblical
World, You Tube: 16:52, https://youtu.be/6EK8Ma83g5g
[3] Dan
Kimball, How (Not) to read the Bible, Zondervan Reflective, 2020, pdf P.
329/509
[4] One
of the common approaches to Scripture that attempts to extend meaning beyond
the biblical author’s original intentions is called concordism. Concordist
interpreters claim there is a convergence between God’s Word and God’s world
and suggest ways that a more sophisticated scientific understanding of the
world can be integrated with statements of Scripture—admittedly applying
meaning to the words of Scripture that the author would never have been aware
of. https://biologos.org/series/old-earth-or-evolutionary-creation-a-new-book-shows-fruits-of-multi-year-dialogue/articles/the-problem-with-trying-to-read-science-out-of-scripture,
accessed on 5/18/2022
[5]
Taking the first view about Concordism from P. 47/675, In Quest of the Historical
Adam by William Lane Craig; Also Type A Concordism from https://biologos.org/articles/the-various-meanings-of-concordism
[6]
Taking the second view about Concordism from P. 47/675, In Quest of the Historical
Adam by William Lane Craig; Also Type B Concordism from https://biologos.org/articles/the-various-meanings-of-concordism
[7]
Reasonablefaith with William Lane Craig, Concordism, November 11, 2013, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/concordism,
accessed on 5/18/2022
[8]
Eternal productions, 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge, https://eternal-productions.org/101science.html,
accessed on 5/18/2022
[9]
Carl Wieland, Regenerating ribs: Adam and that ‘missing’ rib, https://creation.com/regenerating-ribs-adam-and-that-missing-rib,
accessed on 5/18/2022
[10]
Dr. Hugh Ross, Hazy Early Earth: More Affirmation of Creation Day 4,
June 18, 2018, https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/hazy-early-earth-more-affirmation-of-creation-day-4,
accessed on 5/18/2022
[11] Vern
S. Poythress, Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and
Understanding Genesis 1-3, Foreword by D.A. Carson, Crossway, 2019, P.
67-68/402
[12]
Dr. Oakes, Is the question of inerrancy at stake in the time periods of
creation, in the possibility that Adam/Eve are symbolic and in the global flood
of Noah? December 16, 2013, https://evidenceforchristianity.org/is-the-question-of-inerrancy-at-stake-in-the-time-periods-of-creation-in-the-possibility-that-adameve-are-symbolic-and-in-the-global-flood-of-noah/,
accessed on 5/18/2022
[13]
Refer to Type C ‘Concordism’ from https://biologos.org/articles/the-various-meanings-of-concordism
and perhaps the third view about Concordism from P. 47/675, In Quest of the Historical
Adam by William Lane Craig
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
0 Comments