primeval cosmology & inspiration or inerrancy of scriptu
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:26 pm
Many bible scholars contend that the biblical authors believed in a primative cosmology. For example, Lawrence Boadt holds this view. A depicition of the alleged ancient cosmology from Peter Enns' book "Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament" is shown below. Numerous bible verses have been used to support the belief that the biblical authors held such a cosmological view. Namely verses that have phrases such as "the floodgates of heaven", "the ends (or corners) of the earth", "The foundations of the earth", "the pillars of heaven", "they sky will be rolled up", "to the lowest part of Sheol", "The world...cannot be moved", "can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?", Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, etc, etc. Sometimes these phrases are in a poetic context, and in other cases they are not.
This assertion presents a serious problem in regard to the inspiration of scripture. If the biblical authors teach a cosmology like this through the scriptures, then the scriptures teach error at least in the area of "science". My question is how should this attack against the innerancy of the scriptures be answered, or how should the inerrancy/inspiration of scripture be understood?
Either the biblical authors did or did not believe in any given aspect of this cosmology. Therefore, two options follow regarding the innerancy of scripture:
Option #1
One could defend inerrancy based on the view that the biblical authors generally did not have an incorrect understanding of the particular aspects of the cosmology depicted in the image below. If so, then one who defends the inerrancy of scripture must affirm both of the following propositions. This position seems to be a difficult position to take for lack of evidence that shows the ancient Hebrews or biblical authors had a correct understanding of these aspects of the cosmology.
(A) The biblical authors knew the primeval cosmology was wrong when they were writing the scripture. The authors, nevertheless, almost always chose figurative language when describing physical aspects of the world instead of literal language.
(B) The ancient Hebrews were advanced scientifically far ahead of what is known of other ancient civilizations. No historical records, however, exist that acknowledge this advancement either inside or outside of ancient Hebrew civilization.
Option #2
One could agree that the biblical authors generally believed in the aspects of the depicted primeval cosmology. If this is true, then the applicability of a basic hermenutic principal must be considered.
(A) The hermenutic principle that "the meaning the author intended is the true meaning" is not valid. The biblical authors had in mind, and indeed may have believed that they were describing the world literally with respect to the features of the primeval cosmology. Nevertheless, God prevented the writings from being such direct statements that they contradict a modern understanding of cosmology. Therefore, the scripture remains inerrant. The authors of the scripture, however, would presumably been wrong about how they understood their words.
(B) The hermenutic principle that "the meaning the author intended is the true meaning" is valid. The biblical authors did have a primeval cosmology in mind when they were writing the scripture. Thus, the biblical authors would have understood the words of scripture, that they themselves wrote, to be describing features of the cosmology shown below. However, the primeval cosmology is wrong. Therefore, the scripture is wrong in regard to scientific matters. Thus, God appearently does not consider it important to correct the scientific misunderstandings of the authors or their writings. Therefore, if the Bible is wrong about scientific matters at one point, it may well be wrong at others. Some extend this line of reasoning to concluded that Genesis 1-11 is neither scientifically nor historically reliable. Rather, the Genesis account only reflects the scientifically incorrect views of Moses and the ancient Hebrews of how the world came to be.
Update: I saw someone reported trouble with such a big image, so I've switched the picture out for the URL only.
http://www.annarborvineyard.org/donscor ... mology.jpg
Pete
This assertion presents a serious problem in regard to the inspiration of scripture. If the biblical authors teach a cosmology like this through the scriptures, then the scriptures teach error at least in the area of "science". My question is how should this attack against the innerancy of the scriptures be answered, or how should the inerrancy/inspiration of scripture be understood?
Either the biblical authors did or did not believe in any given aspect of this cosmology. Therefore, two options follow regarding the innerancy of scripture:
Option #1
One could defend inerrancy based on the view that the biblical authors generally did not have an incorrect understanding of the particular aspects of the cosmology depicted in the image below. If so, then one who defends the inerrancy of scripture must affirm both of the following propositions. This position seems to be a difficult position to take for lack of evidence that shows the ancient Hebrews or biblical authors had a correct understanding of these aspects of the cosmology.
(A) The biblical authors knew the primeval cosmology was wrong when they were writing the scripture. The authors, nevertheless, almost always chose figurative language when describing physical aspects of the world instead of literal language.
(B) The ancient Hebrews were advanced scientifically far ahead of what is known of other ancient civilizations. No historical records, however, exist that acknowledge this advancement either inside or outside of ancient Hebrew civilization.
Option #2
One could agree that the biblical authors generally believed in the aspects of the depicted primeval cosmology. If this is true, then the applicability of a basic hermenutic principal must be considered.
(A) The hermenutic principle that "the meaning the author intended is the true meaning" is not valid. The biblical authors had in mind, and indeed may have believed that they were describing the world literally with respect to the features of the primeval cosmology. Nevertheless, God prevented the writings from being such direct statements that they contradict a modern understanding of cosmology. Therefore, the scripture remains inerrant. The authors of the scripture, however, would presumably been wrong about how they understood their words.
(B) The hermenutic principle that "the meaning the author intended is the true meaning" is valid. The biblical authors did have a primeval cosmology in mind when they were writing the scripture. Thus, the biblical authors would have understood the words of scripture, that they themselves wrote, to be describing features of the cosmology shown below. However, the primeval cosmology is wrong. Therefore, the scripture is wrong in regard to scientific matters. Thus, God appearently does not consider it important to correct the scientific misunderstandings of the authors or their writings. Therefore, if the Bible is wrong about scientific matters at one point, it may well be wrong at others. Some extend this line of reasoning to concluded that Genesis 1-11 is neither scientifically nor historically reliable. Rather, the Genesis account only reflects the scientifically incorrect views of Moses and the ancient Hebrews of how the world came to be.
Update: I saw someone reported trouble with such a big image, so I've switched the picture out for the URL only.
http://www.annarborvineyard.org/donscor ... mology.jpg
Pete