Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Lionstrong | 46793 | ||
Dear Parable, It sounds like the Dr. is simply imposing unbiblical premises on the Bible to make it conform to the current winds of scientific doctrine. In other words if the Bible were read as it is written, it is clear that it would not agree with current scientific opinion. What we do not need is a rubber Bible. If a straight forward reading does not happen to agree with our present cultural/scientific norms, then so much the worse for our norms. Good scholarship does not mean bending the Bible. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the entrance of His word gives light (Pro. 9:10, Ps. 119:130). If one starts with unbiblical premises, one will logically end up with unbiblical conclusions. What Moses wrote was not from the human, earthly perspective. It was revelation from God. God revealed the order in which he created the universe. The revealed order of creation was not a mistake (i.e., false). God was not compensating "early man's" "unscientific" worldview. God cannot lie. So God created by fiat (not by some long process) the luminaries on the fourth day, which may be contrary to current scientific opinion. But so be it. The Bible is true not only in “religious” matters, but also in its historical details. What we have in Genesis is history, revealed history, but true space/time history nonetheless. It happened the way God through Moses said it happened “in the beginning.” If clearing a path to faith means compromising the truth of Scripture, then the supposed stumbling blocks must be purely imaginary, and we must ask ourselves what faith are we making a path for? Peace, |
||||||
2 | Plants were created, and then stars? | Gen 1:14 | Parable | 47166 | ||
TOMN, Thanks for your kind words about my post. However, I disagree with you about Lionstrong's note. For the record, I agree with his basic premise that good scholarship does not mean bending the Bible. I think all of us agree that good scholarship only helps us to understand the Bible better. For example, if we don't understand the difference between salt in biblical times and the highly purified chemical sodium chloride we use today, Jesus' teaching about salt losing its flavor has no meaning for us. Sodium Chloride never loses its flavor and because it dissolves in water, is not useful for paving roads. However, the salt of old was not pure, containing many other ingredients that were not water soluble and had no taste. If the sodium chloride were leached out of that mixture, the remainder was thrown out. Accordingly, we must be able to consider what good scholarshlp says and what it means to our understanding of the Word. If scholarship is contrary to the fundamental principles God has clearly revealed throughout, then we must be skeptical. However, in those areas where our understanding of specific details is reasonably open to discussion, we must not be stiff-necked in our willingness to review well considered explanations, that if correct, can only add to our understanding of God's message to us. |
||||||