The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Science and Scripture

I am having a discussion with someone who holds to an Old Earth, who believes that science and Scripture are on equal footing; therefore it is not wrong to use science to interpret Scripture, provided we are using facts, not just theory.
He believes the “overwhelming evidence (not theory and presuppositions)” science has uncovered leads almost indisputably towards an Old Earth. Therefore it is not wrong to use this to interpret Scripture.
I told him that it is a dangerous practice to use outside sources to interpret Scripture. He stated that everyone does it, with the following example.

He said without science we would interpret these things literally.
I do not have a lot of time to go much deeper into the subject with him, so I thought perhaps it might be prudent of me to give him an article on why Scripture should always be used to interpret Scripture, rather than outside sources.
Of course I believe that the “overwhelming evidence” science has supposedly uncovered for an old earth, is nothing more than theory in disguise to support their presuppositions. However, we could go on and on if I used that tactic. Seeing he has said that AIG and other organization like it, use arguments that he doesn’t believe hold up to true science.
I think it would be better to stick with handling it this way; then leave Him to the Lord.
If you know of a good article that is appropriate for this particular point, I would appreciate it.
Thank you
Tom

Tom,

A simple search on The Highway probably would have given you what you are asking for.

- The Word of God and Science, by John De Vries

- Response to the Old-Earth Advocacy of Modern Reformation Magazine, by John K. Reed.

This argument when posed by unbelievers is perhaps understandable because they are locked in to their presupposition that all things occur due to natural causes. And thus, allegedly if all things are left to themselves over a period of billions of years, they would have progressed to what we see today. Of course, science itself disputes that presupposition, but that's another laughable subject. But when an alleged professing Christian adopts the pagan view and/or tries to assimilate it with the Bible, the result is ALWAYS science being given more authority than Scripture, just as your antagonist has done; Science must interpret the Bible. A faulty hermeneutic does not make the Bible a fallible authority.

Thank you Pilgrim for providing the articles.
I had a feeling you would say something like that; so I actually did a search before I posted. However, although I found some articles, I couldn’t find an article I thought was appropriate.

I am curious however how you would answer his quote.
Not sure I even want to go there with him, however to be honest I am not sure what to think of that particular part of his response.

Tom

We don't take figurative language literally. Ask the Dispensationalists about that kinda stuff. Christ is not literally a lamb, nor a door, nor a loaf of bread.

But it isn't science that tells us how to interpret God's word, it's Scripture that interprets Scripture!

Context, hermeneutics, scholarship. Not using secular observations and theories to interpret the unobservable mysteries of an invisible God.

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.