We are in agreement if you, like I, believe that science is a legitimate way to understand scripture and infer understanding of the creator, but it is not a method of exegesis. The principles of hermeneutics demand that the text be intepreted based on the cultural and historical context in which it is written, internal consistency, and knowledge of the semantics and syntax of the authors. Applying modern interpretation is the source of many greivous errors and permits all kinds of aberrant teaching to emerge, such a the biblical support of slavery, oppression of women, etc. This is also the principle reason to balk at applying modern scientific understanding to the scripture. It is outside of the context of scripture.
I think we are reasonably close and agreed in general, although it appears we are of different opinions in terms of the conclusions of this approach, as I am an Old Earth Creationist and it appears to me (and please correct me if I am not reflecting your position accurately) that you believe correct Biblical exegesis demands a Young Earth position.
First, I don't necessarily believe science is an appropriate means to exegete scripture. The scientific method itself is de facto materialistic and I don't believe that only that which is physical and subject to that method is the sum of all truth. In fact, I believe a great deal of the age of the earth debate is the result of lifting scripture out of the context of its original human authorship, the understanding of its original audience, and in fact seeks to force some elements of Genesis into a context it was never intended to reside.
The context of Genesis when I look at it is not to give a scientific discourse. I believe the overriding context and message of Genesis is found in the original author (Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) is addressing the Nation of Israel in the early stages of the Exodus to reintroduce them to the history and their nation and covenant relationship with God. Genesis 1 - 11 provides a the backdrop and preparation for chapter 12 - 50 which focus on Abraham, Isaac and Joseph.
I believe there are scientific claims present that are relevant to examine but their are important things to be aware and important to any Christian whether young earth or old earth or some other variant.
1. Hebrew at that time was not a language designed or specialized to give technical precision to the degree read in (in my opinion) by those seeking to find scientific specificity.
2. The Hebrew culture would not have asked the question in these passages as to the time periods covered. The primary point they were deriving from this narrative was along the lines of "We are God's people, created for a purpose by God which ties into His plan which was present from the very beginning of this world."
3. That said it is reasonable to believe that God's purpose and inspiration may have extended beyond the context of the immediate time, language and culture and therefore included us. It is dangerous however, to push that to a degree that overrides or goes beyond the original text and context and when moving in that realm, dogmatic interpretation is going to run a large risk of overstating positions.
Modern scientific understanding is by its very nature fickle and subject to change as more data is accumulated and more theories devised to explain it. It certainly is an unreliable means to attempt to meld Scripture to for the reasons cited.
That said, when we attempt to utilize Scripture to predict scientific conclusions there are some things that bear some analysis.
God is the author of Scripture as well as the creator of the universe. Therefore where truth lies in both areas, addressing a common element, the two should be in perfect accord. Where it is not, there are only a few options to consider.
1. Scripture may be incorrect. As a Christian who believes in inspiration, I cannot entertain this option and I do not.
2. Our interpretation or exegesis may be incorrect. This is not the same as option 1. Unfortunately, some Christians fail to make that distinction and in so doing they actually elevate their theology to the level of Scripture itself which is dangerous and wrong and in a subtle way equates to a form of arrogance and spiritual pride.
3. Science may be incorrect. This is always possible and history demonstrates it in many instances. That said however, it is a cop-out to simply argue it must be wrong when there is a disagreement with Scripture or more likely, the applicable theology or exogesis, (eisogesis maybe even
) in question. The greater the preponderace of data and work done in science that confirms something, the more basis there is to consider that it may be reflecting a truth found in nature which also finds its source in God as creator and the process sorted out.
It's an uncomfortable process but a profitable one if it is worked through by the Christian without compromise to the inspiration and inerrency of Scripture but also extreme care to not try and apply that standard to our interpretation of the text which may need to be adjusted.
In terms of scientific age of the creation, as I believe that is a very minor part of the whole purpose and context of the Genesis account anyway, I think we've overall (myself included) really strained at some gnats and perhaps have swallowed some camels and missed the main point.
So I think we have a lot in common here, but I think maybe these are the areas where there is some difference of approach.
What do you think?
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
