John Clayton wrote this piece. It appeared in the March 1977 edition of "Does God Exist?", published by Donmoyer Avenue Church of Christ in South Bend, Indiana.
Over the past year we have come across several writers who have been sharply critical of the use of scientific facts found in the Bible as a means of proving the Bible is God's Word. These critics have been Christians, not atheists but they feel that abuse has been prevalent in this area. In many cases their criticism is deserved but in other cases the argument involved is not being understood. As we have used this approach on several of our discussions of the accuracy of the Bible, I feel obliged to discuss and explain this question in more detail.
The major objection of the critics to examining the Bible scientifically to prove its inspiration is that the kind of writing used in various passages is ignored. Some books of the Bible are historical, some are poetic, some are prophetic, etc., which means the style of writing will control the validity of its use. The book of Job or Psalms for example, are poetic and thus uses poetic language. In Job 41:19-21 we find a description of a fire breathing dragon which is reminiscent of the Dark Age stories of knight's slaying of fiery dragons. If we are unwilling to accept the idea that Job 41 claims fire breathing dragons exist, how can we claim that Job 26:7 refers to the suspension of the Earth or that Job 38 contains any acceptable references to scientific facts? This is a justified criticism which needs to be answered.
The first point that needs to be made is that the critics making this challenge fail to understand the nature of the argument. We are not really making a positive argument as they suppose, but rather a negative one. We are not saying that God hid bits of scientific wisdom in the Bible for us to find but rather, that unlike other religious writings the Bible does not convey obvious misunderstanding and superstitions about man and his world. When one examines the writings of the Hindu, Buddhist or Greek Pagan worships for example, one finds clear reference to the concept of the Earth being held up by a man, elephant, catfish or some other physical support. Nowhere does the Bible claim a physical support for the Earth and even poetic passages like Job 26:7 avoid that pitfall. This is the nature of the argument, not that a positive injunction to non-physical support for the Earth is mandated by this passage.
The second charge made by critics is often valid; that being that certain passages are "overworked" to arrive at a desired result. Most of us who have studied in this area have probably been guilty of this to one extent or another for it is easy to read a King James verse out of context and see something obviously not intended by the author. People have found submarines in the Psalms and UFOs in Ezekiel by the process we're talking about. The answer to this challenge lies in the following points:
1. We are examining the question of whether obvious man-originated error exists in the Bible or not. See the previous paragraph for this discussion.
2. We are not talking about the English translation of the Bible, but the original language in which the passages were written. One may find apparent scientific errors in the Bible in English, but when one examines the Hebrew or Greek the errors vanish. The classic example of this is Jonah being swallowed by a "giant fish" in Jonah 1:17 and a "whale" in the New Testament. Neither of these translations are particularly close to the actual meanings of the original Hebrew and Greek words. The arguments being made for the scientific accuracy of the Bible are based upon the original language, not on English translations which may contain man-induced error.
3. the basic claim that the Bible is scientifically without error is based upon the concept of what the author is conveying, not on an out of context isolated passage. The classic example of this in a poetic book is Job 38. The stated purpose of Job 38 is for man to compare his knowledge to God (see verses 1-3). For this reason I maintain that it is in order for us to examine the scientific concepts contained in the passage to see if they are valid or not. The existence of poetic language is not a detriment to this process. We have to pay attention to accommodating language but if we can't interpret the poetry, why write it? The author's knowledge can be seen no matter what style of writing is involved.
There is no question that the process of examining the scientific accuracy of the Bible has on occasion been overdone and sometimes incorrectly handled but the attempts of modernists to discount the whole process is ill-advised. If the Bible is inspired by God it will not contain any error of any kind in its original writing (notice I did not say "in its translation"). we can and must demonstrate this fact to our skeptical world. The best passages to do this in this writer's opinion are:
1. The medical statements of Moses in the first five books of the Old Testament.
2. The Genesis 1 account.
3. Job 38.
4. The marriage system of the New Testament.
5. The concept of man's relationship to God in the New Testament.
Each of these areas contain many examples referred to in various works by this author and others. We urge our readers not to shy away from solid use of Biblical foreknowledge, but by the same token to reject any reference which is out of context or isolated from its source and application.
No comments:
Post a Comment