Questions in Genesis: The Scientific Veracity of the Bible
Any
time I encounter discussions of the Bible being or not being scientifically
accurate, I am reminded of the story of Brer Rabbit and the tar baby. Brer Rabbit was unwilling to allow the tar
baby to be a tar baby and got so upset that this inanimate object would not
speak to him that he ends up punching and kicking the tar baby. The end result is that the tar baby was
unmoved and Brer Rabbit ended up in quite a mess.[1] I see the same thing happen when one tries
to fit the Bible into the modern understanding(s) of scientific accuracy. The Bible does not fit nicely into these
categories, and forcing it is not generally helpful. The reason for this is as follows:
1.
The
Bible is an ancient text. It records
history and speaks about the world largely in keeping with the accepted
practices of its time periods. This very
nature of the Bible makes it difficult to fit with a post-enlightenment view of
science. The standards of scientific
accuracy are a rather recent invention within human history.
2.
The
Bible is a religious text. It addresses
reality from a religious perspective. It
even gives two disparate accounts of the creation of the world each of which
made a different theological point.[2] This does not mean that the Bible does not
convey truth about reality. This does
mean that the Bible has other concerns than being a scientific textbook.
As
a Christian, I view the Bible as the product of God’s condescension to reveal
something of Himself to humanity. As
such, I rather expect the language to reflect an ancient worldview and terms to
convey the message. As Saint Augustine
taught me, words are signs that signify something beyond themselves.[3] As such, I do not view the ancient terms and
concepts to necessary be the ultimate or intended things signified. This means that I am not reading the Bible to
see what it has to tell me about the science of the physical world, but about
the spiritual world and realities. At
the same time, the Bible does address the reality of the physical world. This is why the Bible is often used with great
reliability by archeologists. This does not make the Bible a scientific work.
Some
have successfully read portions of the Bible as a science book. The greatest example of this was Matthew F.
Maury. He was inspired by the phrase
“the paths of the seas” in Psalm 8:8.
Partly because of this passage he devoted countless hours of his life to
charting the ocean currents while an officer in the U.S. Navy. His works proved to be of immense benefits to
the speed and effectives of modern navigation.
While
this Biblical phrase here was the impetus of his discovery it does not
necessarily follow that this was the intended meaning of the text. Indeed, it is important to consider whether
or not Psalm 8:8 is actually referring to oceanic currents or simply using
metaphor to describe the movement of sea creatures. This is a particular difficulty when one is
finding scientifically accurate statements embedded in poetic and prophetic
works.
There
are examples even within the same poetic book that can be viewed as
scientifically accurate and clearly not scientifically accurate. In Job 26:7 we read, “He hangs the earth on
nothing.” Some have taken this as
evidence that the Bible affirms that the globe is suspended in space. However, we also read earlier in the same
work, “who shakes the earth under heaven from its foundations and its pillars
tremble” (Job 9:6). This leads to the rather
obvious question of our “scientifically accurate” work, “Does the earth rest
upon pillars or is it a sphere suspended in the vacuum of space?” As a work of science, the Bible is
contradictory at this point. As a work
of poetry however, the theological truths are conveyed with powerful imagery,
the way that poetic works do those things.
Therefore,
when I encounter well-meaning statements along the lines of “The Bible is not a
scientific text book, but everything it says about science is true and reliable,”[4] I slightly grimace. In Joshua chapter 10, our solar system is
presented as the sun orbiting around the earth instead of the earth orbiting
around the sun. That is kinda of a
problem if we were to read the Bible as being scientifically accurate in all
that it says.
To
put it colloquially, the Bible is often quite unconcerned with the “actual
factual”. This is clear when one reads
the “historical” books of the Old Testament.
The history is told from a prophetic point of view. The reason Israel suffers military defeat is
not because they were yet another region being conquered and ruled by powerful
expansionistic empires of the days, but because Israel did not keep the law and
so God handed them over to be punished. This
is to say that the Bible was composed by people whose concern was not “history”
as we would define “history” today.
Rather, they wrote history from the divine perspective. This does not negate the things described in
the Bible as being a-historical events, but it does mean that we should read
the Bible from the perspective of the divine interaction with “human events.”
This
leads me to my concluding point. If one
chooses to read the Bible as though it were written from a post-enlightenment
worldview when discussing the world, then one would either have to discount it
as being untruthful or attempt to argue that the world is not how it is. Either approach ultimately fails to read the
Bible as it was written; as multiple accounts by multiple authors reflecting on
the workings and revelations of God through the medium and world view of their
times. When I apply this conclusion to the Genesis creation accounts, I find that I am not reading these accounts for the sake of gleaning scientific knowledge, but about understanding something about God and how I ought to think and act.
[1]
For the full account of this story, consult Uncle Remus.
[2]
For further discussion on the disagreements between the two Genesis creation
accounts, see my earlier post: https://johnmarkbeazley.blogspot.com/2017/01/questions-in-genesis-part-1-which.html
[3]
This is even the case for Derrida, who despite his best efforts cannot be
understood if signs did not have particular (even if at times ambiguous)
referents.
[4]
For an example see Rick Warren http://pastorrick.com/devotional/english/the-bible-is-scientifically-accurate_579
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment