Re: Science vs. Theology

From: Jan de Koning <jan@dekoning.ca>
Date: Tue Apr 12 2005 - 14:34:34 EDT

At 05:44 PM 4/11/2005, bdffoster@charter.net wrote:
>God gave us scripture, and God gave us creation. He is the author of both.
>Is it appropriate to allow what we know from the study of creation to
>affect how we study and interpret scripture? I think many on this list,
>including myself, would answer yes. But how many of us would answer yes to
>the converse: is it appropriate to allow what we know from the study of
>scripture to affect how we study and interpret creation? As a scientist my
>knee jerk reaction is to say "no way!". But how can you honestly answer
>yes to one and not the other? After further reflection, I lean toward yes
>to both questions. But (it's a big but, yes I have a big but) scientific
>studies should not force scripture to say something it doesn't say. And
>theological studies should not force creation to say something it doesn't
>say. I also think a case can be made for answering yes to the former and
>no to the latter. And I think some YECs would answer no to the former and
>yes to the latter. But I am interested!
> in what the Christian scientific community has to say.
>
>Brent

What bother me most in these discussions is, that we act as if the English
(or, a English) translation is taken as the Word of God. God spoke to the
people who wrote the beginning of the Bible in a language which was not
English, and to a people who did not have a modern education. They did not
speak a modern language and were not thinking in modern ways.

Add to that: they spoke a language we, and had an outlook on life (a
life-"philosophy"") we do not know. Then we come around with a translation
which is far from perfect, and based on the Greek philosophical philosophy
(dividing body and soul), which all Western nations have accepted. I
mentioned before that translation given to certain words in the bible,
which are translated based on the thinking of philosophies, so that certain
words are translated differently, depending on the context. Normally that
would be alright, but if you translate from a biblical philosophy which did
not talk about after-life, only about resurrection, the translation becomes
doubtful to say the least.
An example: if time is a fourth dimension, just like length, breadth, and
height, than it is possible to say: "The moment we die is the moment that
we are resurrected." Than we do not have to worry about being able
to move into a locked room, like Jesus did, or appearing like Moses and
EliJah did on the mountain.

We don't have trouble any longer with text that tell us about the dead
which arise to go with us who are still alive to meet Christ in the "air."
! Thess.4: 15-17

Enough or now.

Jan de Koning
Received on Tue Apr 12 14:37:44 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 12 2005 - 14:37:46 EDT