Science v/s Bible || The Probable Three Groups || Session 2 held at Koinonia Youth Online Fellowship [Old]

 

Group 1

1) The Bible is always above the science 

2) Literal or Plain text reading/ Low context reading

3) Biblicism

4) It has the final say on anything, literally anything, it speaks (Wayne Grudem?)

5) If science contradicts the Bible, the Bible is to be embraced

6) We prefer to stand alone for the Truth rather than following the mass of falsehood. Let truth offend people for a while as they had been offending God since ages. (Reformed thinking)

7) Scientists aren’t God to have answers to every questions.

Christians who choose science and quit their faith often face rhetoric and satirical question such as “If you don’t believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and the young earth view, then why believe Jesus even rose from the dead, since that is in the Bible too?”

Source: Kimball and McDowell, How (Not) to Read the Bible, 259. 

Group 2

1) This position is also labeled as ‘Concordism’: very popular

2) The Bible is inspired word of God, God doesn’t err and his word must agree with the world

3) Allows the study of the world to affect interpretation of the Bible. (David Snoke, The Biblical Case for an Old Earth)

4) There are ancient verses in the Bible which exactly taught modern scientific principles that were discovered pretty much later

5) The Bible teaches a round earth, expanding universe, air has weight, existence of innumerable stars, etc.

6) Almost lost of materials can be found supporting this position

William Craig, one of the most reputed Christian philosophers, theologians and apologists, mentions three kinds of Concordism in his book ‘In Quest of the Historical Adam’: (1) the attempt to extract modern scientific information from scriptural passages; for example, taking Gen 1:1 to teach big bang cosmology; (2) the attempt to interpret scriptural texts in light of modern science; for example, day-age and gap interpretations of Gen 1; and (3) the attempt to integrate the independently discovered findings of contemporary science and biblical theology into a synoptic worldview.16 He further states that Concordism in the first two senses is a flawed hermeneutic as it runs roughshod over the way in which the original author and his audience would have understood the text and because each successive generation would be justified in reading its own science (for instance, Aristotelian physics) into the text. While (1) and (2) are an dishonest imposition of science onto the biblical text, however, (3) represents an important and vital project of the systematic theologian, who seeks to formulate an integrative view of the world based on all our sources of knowledge.

Source: William Lane Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021), 47.

Group 3

1) This position can be a bit uncomfortable 

2) This position can easily hammer down our view of inerrancy 

3) This position can seem to be an escape approach

4) This position can seem teaching the Bible is not that unique than its ancient surrounding

5) This position takes hard time to quench if misunderstood 

Theme: The Bible was written for us BUT not to us

1) A High Context reading

2) The Bible also has its own world and it wasn’t associated with our modern day queries

3) The Bible is True and trustworthy in a sense that it honestly reveals the worldview of its own time

4) Scientific information can be erratic from the modern lens but a normal understanding for the immediate contemporary time.

5) God doesn’t lie but He also communicates with people the way they can conceive: Accommodation theology

6) Vehicle-Cargo approach: The theological message is cargo but the ancient worldview is the vehicle 

Sources:

“The Lost World of Genesis One : Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate | John H. Walton. | Download,” 17, accessed June 10, 2022, https://asia1lib.club/book/2516329/96bf93.

21 Inspiring Philosophy, The Ancient Cosmos: Cultural Context of the Biblical World, Rebuttal to misconception, n.d., accessed June 8, 2022, https://youtu.be/6EK8Ma83g5g.

In this approach, the rib no longer needs scientific fact of regeneration, Genesis six days no longer becomes a scientific account of literal time coverage on earth, Psalms 19:6 no longer states Sun's revolution around the Galactic center, Bible doesn't necessarily condemn evolution and so on. The crazy-sounding accounts had a theological purpose and are still relevant to us.

However, there is certain but minor disagreement even within the group of non-concordist regarding how the ancient people perceived their surroundings. Some believe in their literal perception while others may believe that as phenomenological perception.

Source:

Ben Stanhope, (Mis)Interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient near Eastern Context of the Bible, 2020.

Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam.

Analyzing three positions

Group 1 can sometime hinder the Gospel work and acts as barrier against critical thinking. Its like Pope’s papacy. 

Group 2 can seem to be exciting at first glance unless one discovers difficult passages and finds scientific discoveries and conclusion changing 

Group 3 can be an embarrassment, hindrance to the Gospel and unquenchable at first glance. But, the cultural studies of the ancient world can help us to understand this position. The main aim of this position is to investigate the way original audience understood the text.