Integrating the Bible with scientific information

[Carson]

Hi @dennis,

@dennis

As have been previously stated, the Bible…

@chris

is not a scientific text book and should not be used for those purposes.

But when the Bible speaks of scientific matters Bible-believers would do good to hold to Its truth despite seeming contradiction or inconsistency with the prevailing or accepted scientific convention.

I agree with you. However, the scientific revolution developed from, say, the 16th to the 17th century. We have to be careful not to anachronistically apply our understanding of the world to how these texts were understood by their original authors and communities.

@dennis

The Bible has proven Itself true throughout the ages (even for eternity), but science (i.e., the observable and verifiable knowledge of the material world) has been shown to evolve depending on the available data or technology.

Yes, the Bible is God’s word, and we can trust that it is true. However, as we study church history, it is evident that interpretations of the Bible have varied dramatically from generation to generation. For instance, would you accept how many Christians interpreted the Bible in the 1400s?

@dennis

For specificity…

Luke17:24 (KJV) For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one [part] under heaven, shineth unto the other [part] under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.

The simultaneous Rapture of the saints is illustrated using the speed of light in this verse.

I’m not sure how Luke 17:24 provides a scientific claim.

Lightning appears to be used as a metaphor. As the lightning comes quickly and unexpectedly, so will the coming of the Son of Man. Lightning provides light, so the Son of Man will light up the world.

Even assuming a Rapture (which is a disputed theological position), how could we use a future rapture to establish the speed of light today?

Or if the saints came at a speed of 10 meters per second rather than at the speed of light, would this verse be falsified?

@dennis

But the evolutionist/naturalist bias of the prevailing cosmology (of the ”science falsely so called”) would rather extend the age of the universe rather than accept a young universe.

I love the Bible and Jesus. That motivates me to love God with all of my mind. As I’ve read the research on this topic, I don’t see good evidence for a young universe but for an old one. Instead of negatively labeling people, and assuming bad motivations (e.g, “of the science false called”), we need to develop a careful presentation of the evidence. In this case, I don’t think the Bible teaches a young earth, nor do I think there’s good scientific evidence for that claim.