Completely agree!
The OT is not a scientific text book and should not be used for those purposes.
I think I cited Churck by mistake. I am recovering from the flu and was feverish while typing. So I’m grateful what I said was at least coherent. I also remember Chuck giving that example of peanut butter and hearing the rebuttal concerning abiogenesis. My aim wasn’t to esteem him as the ideal only that I heard stuff from him once upon a time.
The point I was making is that what may be communicated poetically may also provide a rebuttal to the scientific arguments that argue against God’s truth. Richard Dawkins asked why would an intelligent designer cause the vagus nerve to travel so far when a much shorter nerve would suffice. God said it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks. The poetic and narrative truths are not in conflict with scientific discovery, but instead can offer meaning and reason to the measured order that science observes.
I like that quote from Augustine. I think that’s why I delete a lot of what I write. The problem with those people he’s talking about is that Christians will dig their heals in and become adamant about their personal view. In that case the Christian has missed God and has instead chosen to lean on their own understanding. Yes it does cause…
But then so does all other sin and arrogance.
My response to Richard Dawkins dissection video wouldn’t likely compel him, a staunch atheist, to repent and turn to God. But it illustrates how the scriptures can interact with and respond to scientific observations, even observations put forth as truths.
Agreed. I’m not a trained apologist. I’m just curious enough about science and theology to chime in from time to time. I wish I had more time available to invest in writing a more composed reply.