The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Science and Scripture

The question involves a hermeneutical issue. Who said that EVERYTHING we read in the Bible MUST be taken literally?? Of course, the historic and traditional hermeneutic; Grammatico-Historico which has come under attack in recent years, e.g., Peter Enns, N.T. Wright, et al, recognizes that grammar includes such forms of literature as poetry, symbolism, etc. And, the Bible is not excluded from this fact. The CONTEXT and the Analogy of Faith; comparing Scripture with Scripture will determine how the various parts are to be understood.

Yes, the Bible says "the sun rises and sets" and so do we today. But we are not making a scientific statement concerning the relationship between the earth and sun. It is a statement made from a human perspective and observation. As far as "a bat is a bird", this is more a matter of translation. And "seeds must die before they can grow" is a general statement used as an illustration to make a point about something else. Seeds do not always remain seeds but lose their original form and change into something else. For someone to take Jesus' illustration and use it to assail the truth of what He was teaching because it isn't 100% scientifically correct according to modern science is ridiculous. But more important, it reveals an antagonistic presupposition of those who make such claims against not only the divine inspiration of the Bible, but God Himself as the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

Scripture is theopneustos, God-breathed, aka: inspired by God and therefore it is infallible and inerrant in EVERYTHING it speaks about according to the intent of the author. Secondly, because it is inspired it is 100% authoritative in all that it says according to the intent of the author. If, for example, the Bible addresses the physical creation of the earth as being accomplished in 6 24-hour days propositionally, then it must be understood literally. A further inquiry into the whole of Scripture regarding the creation of the earth, animals, man, etc. will confirm the proposition. Contrariwise, so-called science begins with the proposition that there is no God or at best there is some divine intellect who assists in the creation of things but by and large all things proceed on their 'natural course', i.e., the universe as we know it evolved on its own, being left to itself after some one or thing got it started. Therefore, man's investigation and perception of the physical universe results in theories that of necessity need time... LOTS of time to explain how things are the way they are. Of course, one doesn't need to be a scientist to know that there simply is not enough time to explain the present existence of things... endless time wouldn't be enough.