2.31 - Alleged Contradictions with Science
May 07, 2005 | Comments: 2Biblical Hermeneutics Part Second Chapter 31
The author in this chapter responds to popular allegations that some results of scientific research are irreconcilably at odds with the clear statements of Scripture. He also repudiates the notion that personal faith in the Living God revealed in Scripture is necessarily antithetical to honest scientific inquiry. He begins by setting forth the self-evident: that truth can never be self-contradictory; hence no fact of nature or history can ever be in real conflict with the declarations of the Omniscient God. If it appears to be so, then either the fact is not as it has been stated, or we have misunderstood the revelation of God.
The principal areas of dispute are records of the miraculous, descriptions of natural phenomena and accounts of origin of the world and of mankind. Miracles are as much a part of the divine order of the universe, as are its creation and preservation, since all these manifest the power and majesty of the Maker. Miracles are moreover gracious signs given at particular times to confirm and validate His redemptive words, and are always seen to be worthy of and consistent with the Author of the divine revelation.
The claims with respect to natural phenomena are for the most part dismissed by gaining a clear understanding the perspective and purpose of the authors, who speak mainly in the common language of men, not in the technical terms of science, e.g. “the rising of the sun to its setting” (Psalm 50.1) does not stand in opposition to Copernicus, it simply describes the phenomenon from the human perspective, as we still do today.
Through study of authorial perspective and intent along with comparative analysis with other biblical texts, Terry makes a case for taking figuratively the passage concerning the sun standing still for Joshua, which of course eliminates any potential conflict with science. As a poetical quotation from the Book of Jasher, inserted to commemorate the victory at Aijalon, he sees the statement as figurative, in the same way as the stars fighting in Judges 5.20, the mountains melting in Isaiah 39.3, the heavens being rent in Psalm 18.9, etc. Likewise his analysis of the Deluge leads him to no conflict with science, since he concludes that the text does not speak of a literal global flood. The narrative is apparently an eyewitness account handed down to the author, and is naturally recounted from the eyewitness’ point of view. The Flood is universal from that perspective, and is inclusive of all mankind, who at that time occupied a very small portion of the globe.
Finally, concerning the origin of the world and mankind, he shows the flaws of the various fanciful views, which reject the plain meaning of the prose narrative of Genesis 1. Again focusing on the perspective of the author, and citing the usus loquendi of various Hebrew words such as ? (land) and ???? (sky), he contends that the creation narrative concerns a local and limited creation in an already existent world, and he accounts for the controversial statements phenomenologically, e.g. the setting of luminaries in the sky was what appeared in Eden. [Aside: Though I am not certain I agree with all of Terry’s conclusions, there is no denying that he is consistent in applying his methodology of interpretation. And as consistently sound as are Terry’s hermeneutical principles and their application, he would undoubtedly still find himself at odds with many a wooden-headed literalist of our day.]
Comments
If Terry’s excellent hermenuetical principles lead him to some conclusions that may be incorrect, is there a flaw(s) in his principles? Or does this show the limitations of the best of principles? You state that he is consistent in applying his principles and so I wonder if you think one or some of his principles are not excellent or sound. Which ones? Which of his conclusions do you find difficult to accept? Figurative interpretation of the sun standing still? Local flood? Local creation?
Nathan on May 18, 2005 at 06:00 PM
As we discussed in person over coffee, good principles do not mean that you will always get correct conclusions. In logic you may have a perfectly constructed syllogism, but the result, though logically valid, may not be true if your starting premises are inaccurate. His principles are good, but results are only as good as the data going in. Garbage in, garbage out.
I think Terry may have stretched his principles here a little bit, in the attempt to reconcile Scripture to the named issues in contemporary science. I don’t believe we are compelled to immediately resolve all apparent contradictions. All the data is not in. We must hold the authority of Scripture as axiomatic, and hence adhere to the plain meaning as we find it. With respect to human science we may and must hold some things in tension.
As to his conclusions, I’m dubious about all of them, but especially the local flood. In illustration of the first paragraph above, I question the accuracy of some his assumptions going in, e.g. that the earth was then as it is now (ice caps, saline oceans, etc.).
Andrew on May 21, 2005 at 11:30 AM
