An evilusion debate, the board is too quiet

[kadame]

Kababe,
Science confirms the Bible, Its not a matter of choice between Science and Bible. There is no insoluble conflict between the two.
While the Bible is not written as a science textbook when it speaks of nature you will note that whenever it speaks on nature and science it is accurate. Only creator could communicate this.
A good portion of our modern science was founded by creationists.
Galileo with Heliocentricity ,Issac Newton with Calculas and gravity, particle theory of light
Joseph Liste with Antiseptic surgery
Louis Pastuer - sterilization, bacteriology he is one of the greatest biologists.
Johann Kepler -celestial mechanics astronomy .... the list is huge

I understand. Interesting view. My view is that there's no science in the scriptures. As I've seen it said by one writer, when our Lord spoke of the mustard seed as the smallest seed and its tree as the greatest herb, he was not thereby laying down a principle of botany. Rather, he was concerned with teaching a supernatural truth about the kingdom of God on Earth using the common understanding of his audience.

Bittertruth,

It is true that the Bible does not contain scientific errors, and we are both agreed there. But the reason why this is not so, I think we are missing each other completely. The reason why no scientific error (or even accurate scientific teachings) are to be sought in the Bible is only because the Bible is not bothered with teaching science at all, anywhere. I think that stating this and then going on to look for science in the sacred books is self-contradiction. Why look for what is not there in the first place? It is not true that all statements in the scriptures concerning nature are scientifically accurate if we were to transpose them to the scientific language of today. Of course, this does not mean that what is in the Bible is a scientific error, what it means is that the language of the Bible must be taken into account, and where it is not a scientific statement, it must not be treated as so, and this is true not just for non-Christians but Christians as well.

What I mean is that the Bible might use figures of speech common to the language and culture in which the particular book has been written. It is wrong for a reader today to then read into it some kind of scientific statement that was never intended. So for example, I have seen this example used in explaining this concept: Today people might make these statements in everyday conversation.

"it is raining cats and dogs", or "I have a million things to do", or "so and so says/does the craziest things ever!" " or so and so is the craziest person ever" etc etc.

Now we, reading these statements today understand exactly what they mean. It would be utterly ridiculous for a reader from the future finding our writings and reading their translations in some other language in the future that does not have such idioms/hyperboles in it to then decide that we were making scientific errors (or scientifically proper statements even!) when we made such statements!

Suppose our Lord lived in our own age and not 2000 years ago and he told a parable like this,

"A man left home to run an errand one day and on the way, it began to rain cats and dogs. He thought to himself "I have a million things to do today! And I am so far away from home. What must I do? I am also afraid to lodge here with these people because they are known to do the craziest things (or are the craziest people)....." etc etc.

Now, imagine this debate between these two fellaz living in 3,000 AD.

The Skeptik: Jesus knew nothing about science! Look at all the absurd statements he was making!
Literalist in a non-English language: You are wrong! In fact, science has not established all there is to know about rain! It could have been a miracle. Plus its not technically impossible for someone to perform a million tasks in a day because he may even have delegated it to servants who could perform 1 million tasks on that same day, and since there's no test to measure craziness, this people with the lodging may indeed have been the craziest people who ever roamed this earth. How on earth do you know they were not? Were you there? etc etc

My point? Poking around a book that does not make any claim to teach science and trying to find scientific facts there seems utterly absurd to me. I say that with respect, not intended to offend you. So I hope you dont take it that way. 

Christians would do well to quit insisting that all statements in the Bible are scientifically accurate when planted onto today's scientific language when this is demonstrably not the case.

[kadame]

Also, Bittertruth, look at what this guy says and you'll get what I mean:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=6&article=3738

I think part of the problem with literalism is failing to understand the difference between inspiration versus dictation. Muslims believe that Al'Quran was dictated TO Mohammed, by the Archangel Gabriel. There was no part for the idosyncracies of the Quraish or Meccan Arabs or indeed the ones from Medina to enter into the Quran. The Quran is basically God's literal words, all Mohammed did was repeat them as they were read to him by the angel.

That is NOT what Christians understand by inspiration. Inspiration means that God the Holy Spirit communicated eternal truths through the pen of a human author. The language used is not a heavenly language like the Arabic of the Quran (according to Sunni beliefs). No. It is the language and concepts of that human writer as he was writing within a particular historical and cultural context that is used, but the truths communicated through that language and pen are divine...Inspiration. Reading these works, you should be aware of what truths God wanted to communicate, were they scientific, theological, historical, or what? You cannot just ignore the concrete contexts of language/culture/history and presume you are reading it as if it was written today by a scientist using the English language. That's my view.