Science And The Bible

[David Henson]

David- you're right, scientists often challenge accepted theories with new experiments and ideas. That is what science IS. It is self-correcting, self-improving.

That was my point.

The bible, on the other hand, does not change- only our interpretations of it. These "revisions" have to be done to keep up with the world. Of late, interpretations seem to be getting less and less literal and more... metaphorical. This is because in the realm of natural laws etc the bible is almost always wrong, in a very literal sense.

It sounds to me like you are trying to justify ignorance of the Bible through interpretation for the sake of an argument for what you call "natural laws" which is nothing more than scientific theory and more susceptible to interpretation than the Bible which itself doesn't change.

I think that is typical but you have done it in a most interesting fashion, if that is indeed what you have done. The term "historical inevitability" comes to mind, which is all the more intriguing due to what you say next . . .

That applies to history, as well. It doesn't matter how you interpret, for example, the great flood story- if that is meant to be an historical event, then the bible is wrong in that case.

If we are discussing the relevance of interpretation we seem to agree that the Bible, history, and science are subject to it. I think, though, that we would have to agree that religion, as a general rule, is far less tolerant of interpretation. Having said that, historically speaking there isn't one continent on Earth where the legend of a global deluge doesn't exist in one form or another. What you are really saying, and correct me if I am wrong, is that there doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence of a worldwide flood so a literal interpretation of such a global deluge must be modified due to an intolerance of that scientific lack of evidence.

If that is what you are saying I disagree with it.