Dovegiven : Hi
I'm not going to be able to answer all of your last long post in one go. Bible scholars didn't initiate ideas like the earth being billions of years old. It was "secularists" that started that. Look it up, "secularism". For a century many people who know what the Bible says about things compromised those beliefs, accepting ideas popular with secularists.
Actually most scientists previously thought according to the ‘traditional religious’ interpretations of earth origins and cosmology. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and other church suppressed 'thinkers’ found those explanations, unconvincing, (unsurprisingly to us today). Biblical literalists, (the majority of religious people at that time), still believed plagues, earthquakes and other natural disasters to be entirely caused by the wrath of God, to punish the wicked, and they could cite many Biblical texts to support their case. (This notion of course gave a certain 'flavour' to their Theology and concept of the character of God, torture and brutality being generally accepted even within the church if in a 'righteous and Godly' cause).
In the favor of ‘Christian / Jewish / Moslem’, thinkers at least they could understand the scriptures sufficiently to discern that the moon, sun, stars etc. were not ‘Gods’ themselves but were merely set there by
God. Many ‘religions’ did though and some of the more primitive ones with ignorant followers, doubtless still do. For a century many people who know what the Bible says about things compromised those beliefs, accepting ideas popular with secularists.
I would say it was more a case of people abandoning outmoded, disproved, unscientific explanations of natural phenomena in favor of a world view that accorded with and was confirmed by their new found scientific knowledge. In short the new ideas worked better than the old ones did at explaining what could be observed as objective truth. The ones in short who refused to 'head bury' at behest of the church authorities.
There are still those around who stubbornly insist that the earth is a flat disk and in Hitlers Germany there were still large numbers of people who believed that the earth was a hollow sphere, we are on it’s inside surface and are revolving round the sun at it's centre, (though how they explained day and night I fail to comprehend). Human beings are capable of ‘believing’ the most preposterous nonsense if it becomes important enough to them to carry on doing so or if better, more plausible explanations cannot be found. We have that event as described in Genesis endorsed by Jesus and disciples as a literal event positioned by genealogies.
This is where the ‘fundamentalist literal’ interpretation of scripture gets you, with it’s underlying assumption that every word and sentence must literally mean only and exclusively exactly what it says at face value and allowing for no other possible explanation or interpretation other than the one which is deduced
by the ‘literalist’ reader. And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
One might ‘deduce’ from what Peter wrote that Peter ‘believed’ in ‘a global flood’. You would be wrong. Peter never believed the world was a ‘globe
’. Peter therefore referred to a ‘flood
’ which did not spare ‘the ungodly
’. The exact extent
of which need only have been the portion of ‘the world
’ then known
to those that survived. Peter's point is not made in order to establish the extent
of a ‘global flood
’. His subject is judgment of the wicked
. He refers to ‘the old world
’, the world of ancient legend
. It is quite possible that the end of the ice age and the catastrophic flooding of Mesopotamia and filling of the Black Sea and submergence of the thousands of square miles of inhabited land form the basis for all ‘flood stories’. Flood stories were not written in order to establish
that there had been a catastrophic flood. They were all written to make a Theological point or provide a moral explanation
for a widely accepted and generally assumed prehistoric event. A prehistorical event which may be actually preserved in the geology of the area and can perhaps be dated to about 5,600 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/...ea_deluge_hypothesis
As with most scientific theories however there is debate over the interpretation of the data and even the data itself. IF
it actually happened where and when suggested, it might provide good reason for ‘flood legends’ proliferating in the whole region and beyond, later to be used by the author(s) of the Pentateuch to comment on the reasons why God might do such a thing, with warning against the perils of lawless and selfish behavior. when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Peter in referring to ‘the days of Noah’ was not necessarily trying to establish the fact
that the flood had happened, that was already legendary. Neither can it be inferred that he had knowledge that it had definitely occurred or held opinions as to it’s date in history. Peter was referring to the scriptural
account, which is all the evidence
he had. He chose to refer to this particular scripture in a purely metaphorical manner. (‘Like a figure whereunto even baptism . . . . . .’). Saying in effect that believing in the resurrection of Jesus is LIKE
being saved in the ark. There is no absolute necessity for a ‘flood of global extent, by our modern estimation’ to have actually occurred in order for Peter’s metaphor or simile to have it’s full force and meaning in reference to ‘the resurrection of Jesus Christ’. To make this reference by Peter establish proof of 'a global flood' is a violation of the meaning and purpose for which it was written. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
Luke 17:27. Matt. 24:38
Here also Jesus is not
concerned to try to establish the FACT
that a 'global flood' had actually taken place. Even if
it had been generally regarded as ‘legendary
’ by the time of Christ and even if
Christ himself regarded it as ‘legendary
’, he could still legitimately cite it, (in company with Sodom and Gomorrah), as an example
of people being unaware of and unprepared for disaster and judgment. This statement is not irrefutable proof that Jesus ‘believed
’ the same as you do
regarding a flood of ‘global proportions
’, there being no evidence that Jesus even believed the world to be
’ during his sojourn on Earth. we have Bible genealogies that wouldn't make a bit of sense,
The genealogies in the Bible are not necessarily accurate. There was no register of births marriages and deaths until the Pentateuch was written and they were written by inspiration for inspiration from aural tradition, not to establish chronological data for historical events. Compare and count carefully the Genealogies in Luke and Matthew for the lineage of Jesus. You may discover something odd. No wonder we are told ‘not to give heed to them
’ by scripture itself. Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1 Tim 1:4. But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
Tit. 3:9 I am one of many refusing to consider God missed it by several billions of years, and will not accept that He didn't inspire the writing of those scriptures. I choose the Bible over all science, putting science below the revelations of those scriptures.
Surely you actually mean you choose ‘your
interpretation of scripture to the truth
revealed by science whenever the two appear
to be in conflict’.
Our interpretation of the ‘inspired word of God’ is inclined to be limited by our understanding and intelligence. Likewise with science.
I think it is a mistake to think we have an unshakably tenacious grip on the TRUTH
from whatever quarter it may come. Too many fools misinterpret science and scripture
to their own detriment by assuming they already FULLY