The first session on Friday was handled by John MacArthur who spoke on “The Bible and Science.” He chose to narrow in on specifics rather than theory.
He began with several assumptions: whoever created the universe and everything that exists within it necessarily understands its nature and operation perfectly. Whoever created it does not have to wait for scientific discovery for Him to discover its operation. If He wrote a book, we would expect that it would be accurate. Whoever is great enough to create and sustain this universe would be intelligent enough to write a relatively clear and accurate assessment of it. He would be able to communicate accurately and truly.
MacArthur quickly surveyed the scriptures of other major religions, showing where they disagree with what is clear by scientific observation. Over against these scriptures, we need to find a book that is morally and scientifically accurate when assessed by true science since the true Creator is going to tell us the truth. He is not going to make mistakes in His book because He has created this entire universe to function on a complex, unfathomable, inscrutable information system. All of life depends on the communication of information, so we’d expect the book written by the creator not to say stupid and ridiculous things.
The Bible claims to be this book—the Word of the living God. It claims to be accurate in everything in says and inerrant no matter what it says. Its veracity and accuracy must be sustained under the most intense examination. The Bible is not a textbook on science, but wherever it intersects with science it must be completely true and accurate. If critics had been able to find scientific error in the Bible they would have found it by now. And this is good, because if the Bible is inaccurate in a scientific point it cannot be trusted in spiritual matters either.
Modern scientists have developed a totally irrational approach to reality which says nobody x nothing = everything. This is ultimate stupidity to say that chance and chaos can create all around us. It is important to realize that evolution was created not as an attack on theism, but as an attack on the God of the Bible. Evolution can coexist with a god, but not the God of the Bible.
MacArthur chose to consider Scripture from a scientific standpoint, looking at science in Scripture in some specific ways. He said that God has spoken in His creation in more sophisticated ways than previous generations could understand. For example, the discovery of DNA is a discovery that God has spoken. He has not just spoken in His Word but into every facet of His creation. Every cell has a language, can communicate within itself, and can pass information around. The organic world is really a book packed with sophisticated biological information. The genetic code is truly digital exactly as computer codes are. This is not an analogy but a reality. Digital information is a reality that exists within the organic world. Until recently the grand omission in the scientific world has been the neglect of information. The idea that complexity arose from simplicity cannot and will not be proven. Science cannot demonstrate that information can spontaneously occur or appear either in organic or inorganic materials. Science cannot show that information can arise from non-information or complex information can arise from simple information. The conclusion through computer engineering is that information comes alone from intelligence and that intelligence expending energy. Simple computer blueprints or programs always come from intelligent efforts.
For example, silicon and copper do not create the reality of the television, but together can hold the concept of it. They can contain the external information that is applied to them, but silicon and copper are not a television. Information exists outside the object. The information is exogenous. The material can contain the information but not produce it.
Energy produces nothing of intelligence or order but only disorder. This is why Christianity sees “person” instead of “force.” The only true source of any information is intelligence. It is person. Person applies ideas, concepts to materials which can only hold that information and not produce it. This is why the Creator in John 1:1 is called the Word.
MacArthur then spoke of the complexity of the cell, comparing it, as many have done before, as a factory town. Interestingly, scientists cannot describe the cell without referring to engineering and machines. This is a level of complexity that Darwin never dreamed up. It is irreducibly complexity and must exist this way for any integrated cellular system to exist. There cannot be a process by which it can be achieved but must all exist simultaneously.
While MacArthur had opportunity only to speak of the micro world, the same principles would be true if we looked at the macro world. Somewhere there must be a master of information. If he can do all this, we must trust Him for the book.
He turned to several specific scientific examples, such as hydrology, astronomy the orbit of the sun, the fact that the moon does not have its own light but merely reflects the sun, the perfect balance of the sun, the shape of the earth, gravity, meteorology, etc. In all of these we see that the Bible spoke of what we now know as scientific fact long before humans figured this stuff out.
The answer to everything we need to know about the way things really are both spiritually and materially are found in the Word of the Creator. Skeptics and critics have been relentless in trying to find an error in the Bible. They never have, and of course, they never will. Though the Bible is not a science book, where it intersects with science it must always be right, for it is the book of the God who created things just as they are. There is nothing that is a surprise to Him and nothing He does not know.
Comments (50) »
1. Ryan
March 16, 2007
4:43 PM
Do you know where can I find a transcript of this message?
2. JMac
March 16, 2007
5:10 PM
John MacArthur’s website http://www.gty.org/ may have something. So may the conference’s site…I’m not sure though.
3. Tim Challies
March 16, 2007
5:53 PM
I don’t think a transcript is available. The MP3 will be on Ligonier’s site before long, I’d think. They are supposed to have the audio available locally within an hour or so after the message.
4. Kathleen
March 16, 2007
8:44 PM
The Bible claims to be this book—the Word of the living God. It claims to be accurate in everything in says and inerrant no matter what it says. Its veracity and accuracy must be sustained under the most intense examination.
Which particular claims of the Bible are supported by verifiable evidence? You’ve listed none here, but surely MacArthur wouldn’t have made such a claim with providing some examples.
In all of these we see that the Bible spoke of what we now know as scientific fact long before humans figured this stuff out.
Again, I see no examples. Did MacArthur provide a single example of a scientific finding that the Bible exhibited “advance knowledge” of that would demonstrate that the Bible writers did not merely reflect the primitive knowledge-base of their own era?
5. Shannon
March 16, 2007
9:01 PM
Kathleen,
I was not at the conference so I don’t know if MacArthur cited specific examples, however he has in previous writings identified specific examples. Although there are many sermons and transcripts that contain that information, here is one link that will help answer your questions.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1348.htm
6. Puddleglum
March 16, 2007
9:09 PM
Words fail - so I’ll just let good St. Augustine say what needs to be said…
“Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.” — St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim”
7. Kathleen
March 16, 2007
10:31 PM
Shannon, I checked the source you cited and it’s not favorable to MacArthur. Here’s an example of what MacArthur apparently considers “advanced” scientific knowledge from the Bible.
On the subject of hydrology — the scientific branch concerned with the hydrologic cycle of water evaporation, cloud formation, precipitation, infiltration, humidity, soil moisture, glacier melt, runoffs, etc. and which includes the fields of ecohydrology, hydrometeorology, and isotope hydrology, among others — MacArthur claims that “the hydrologic cycle is clearly described in Scripture” and here is a sample of what he provides as evidence (in italic):
Ecclesiastes 1:7—“All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full.” That’s because of the hydrologic cycle.
Putting aside the mistaken claim that all rivers run into the sea, does this observation strike you as ahead-of-its-time scientific knowledge? Is there any sophisticated understanding of the hydrologic cycle evidenced here — anything out of the ordinary for even a casual observer in ancient Israel?
1. Isaiah 55:10-11—“As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth, and making it bear and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it” (NASB).
MacArthur has (cherry?)picked the NASB translation, no doubt because the phrase ‘do not return there without watering the earth’ suggests that water returns to the heavens. Problem is, other translations say the opposite.
KJV: “For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater.”
NKJV: “For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, And do not return there, But water the earth, And make it bring forth and bud, That it may give seed to the sower And bread to the eater.”
NLT: “For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, And do not return there, But water the earth, And make it bring forth and bud, That it may give seed to the sower, And bread to the eater. ”
Even if we accept MacArthur’s Biblically-disputed claim, does this suggest any sort of advanced knowledge about the earth’s hydrology, outside what could easily be observed by ordinary people living in a primitive era?
This is just a small sample of what MacArthur apparently considers Biblical evidence of ahead-of-its-time scientific knowledge. Do you find this convincing?
8. chris
March 16, 2007
11:49 PM
Kathleen stated, “Its [the Bible] veracity and accuracy must be sustained under the most intense examination.”
We, as believers, agree with this. We do not make false distinctions. For example: Some people think of two Jesus’ i.e. the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history, but we make no such. If the bones found in the osuary would prove beyond doubt that they are really Jesus’ bones then we would all do well to abandon the christian faith, shut the ligonier conference down and go home defeated.
9. chris
March 17, 2007
12:18 AM
Kathleen,
God is here speaking and he is making a point. God is giving the analogy rain and how it comes down on earth and “does not return” UNTIL it accomplishes it’s purpose i.e. to water the earth. Then God says, “…so shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it”
Isolating “returneth not thither” or “And do not return there” from the context will keep you from the main point. It is clear from the analogy given that water does return because God is using it to draw the analogy. If rain does not return then God does not know how to make a point.
10. Keith
March 17, 2007
2:59 AM
Actually, Chris, you couldn’t be more wrong. Evidence can never disprove the Bible because:
1. Evidence is inductive by its very nature and therefore can’t prove anything (this is perhaps a matter of semantics, but it’s still crucial that we differentiate between proof and evidence)
2. The use of evidence presupposes the uniformity of nature which can only be accounted for by trust in the Christian God. Therefore, to even argue against God using evidences is to assert His existenence and the truth of His revelation.
This can be tricky to piece together right away. I’d encourage you to look into the subject of biblical epistemology and apologetic methodology. This is an area where most well-known apologists fail miserably, especially RC Sproul.
11. kathleen
March 17, 2007
3:31 PM
Chris, I think you’re missing my point, which is not about the analogy between water and God’s word, but about MacArthur’s claim that the Bible writers were endowed with some ahead-of-their-time knowledge of scientific truths that came to light in subsequent centuries.
To the contrary, I see no evidence that the Bible writers exhibited anything beyond the rudimentary level of scientific understanding that marked their primitive era. MacArthur’s examples seem a bit desperate to me (see above), as when he claims that the Bibilical call for isolating unclean lepers is a prescient forerunner of medical quarantine. He omits, of course, the fact that it wasn’t just those with obviously visible and communicable skin diseases who were ordered to be segregated as ‘unclean’ — so were menstruating women and women who had just given birth (if the baby was female, the mother was ‘unclean’ much longer than the mother of a male baby).
Upshot: I didn’t find a single example of MacArthur’s to be convincing evidence that the Biblical writers possessed prescient knowledge in any field of science or medicine. If he has other examples, it’d be good to examine them.
12. Van Edwards
March 17, 2007
6:12 PM
I listened online and was unable to take notes, but one of the examples MacArthur used was regarding blood. In Middle Ages and even beyond, sick people were bled as a means of treatment. But Levitcus 17:11 states that “the life of the flesh is in the blood.”
13. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 18, 2007
1:54 PM
Kathleen,
I don’t think any amount of information/proof is going to convince you of anything.
Let me ask you something…
Do you believe that God is now declaring that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead?
The reason I ask this is because, if you do not, then there is no need in trying to discuss with you the whole topic of science and the Bible. Do you acknowledge that you are a sinner in need of saving, and have you turned from your sin and placed your faith and trust in the only One (Jesus Christ) who is worthy to represent you before a holy and righteous and just God…the One who has died as a substitute for sinners?
14. kathleen
March 18, 2007
3:08 PM
Brian writes: I don’t think any amount of information/proof is going to convince you of anything.
Can you tell me how you arrived at that conclusion based on what I’ve written?
To the contrary, I’d be convinced that the Bible writers were endowed with special advanced knowledge if MacArthur could back up his claim with truly convincing examples that would clearly demonstrate a level of understanding not known at the time. All it would take would be one Biblical passage that demonstrated a clear comprehension of any scientific concept not known at the time, such as photosynthesis, or osmosis, or brain waves, or particle light, or electricity, to give but a few examples.
MacArthur’s examples appear to be the equivalent of taking “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water; Jack fell down and cracked his crown and Jill came tumbling after” — and claiming that this demonstrates ahead-of-its-time knowledge of the gravitational pull of the planets.
15. Shannon
March 18, 2007
4:07 PM
Kathleen writes: “To the contrary, I’d be convinced that the Bible writers were endowed with special advanced knowledge if MacArthur could back up his claim with truly convincing examples that would clearly demonstrate a level of understanding not known at the time.”
Are you limiting this to areas of science only or are you willing to take into consideration the hundreds of prophecies on the OT that have come true?
Are you saying your belief in the Bible hinges on the ability of someone to produce evidence of special advanced knowledge of scientific facts by the OT writers?
16. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 18, 2007
4:16 PM
Kathleen,
I noticed that you did not respond to my other questions.
Are you a disciple of Jesus Christ? Have you been washed in the blood of the Lamb? Have you eaten His flesh and drunk His blood?
This issue needs to be addressed before going any further with any other issues of the Bible and science.
17. chris
March 18, 2007
6:02 PM
Kathleen,
Sorry for the delay. I am on the road home so I do not have access to the internet. I ‘m currenly still not home, but I made a stop to access the internet.
So I was simply addressing your hermeneutic on Isaiah not the issue of hydrology or MacArthur’s apologetic presentation. Since you disagreed with MacArthur I was trying to get you to offer an alterntive interpration but also trying to draw your attention to the flow of thought in the passage.
Keith,
By the way, I believe in the ‘The christian God’ and in his scriptures so I do not know where you’re coming from. Were you even following the interaction between Kathleen and I?
18. CHRIS
March 19, 2007
12:20 AM
Brian, I understand your point on biblical epistemology. The Bible cannot be disproved. I understand where you are coming from. In other words no one is ever going to “evidence themselves into the Kingdom”. I don’t know what I wrote that caused you to write, “Actually, Chris, you couldn’t be more wrong.” ???
19. Kathleen
March 19, 2007
12:45 AM
Shannon writes: Are you limiting this to areas of science only or are you willing to take into consideration the hundreds of prophecies on the OT that have come true?
I’m sticking to the topic of the thread — MacArthur’s claims about The Bible and Science.
Are you saying your belief in the Bible hinges on the ability of someone to produce evidence of special advanced knowledge of scientific facts by the OT writers?
Nope. I’m saying the article above (as well as the link to one of MacArthur’s written articles) don’t provide convincing evidence that the Bible writers possessed any scientific knowledge in advance of the era in which they wrote. And I’m asking if more-convincing examples exist.
20. Puddleglum
March 19, 2007
2:25 AM
It is a pity that Kathleen’s personal faith is being challenged simply for stating the obvious fact that on this topic Dr. MacArthur is out to lunch, and I mean completely out to lunch. None of his examples are convincing in the least. They remind me of one fundamentalist preacher I heard who claimed that red winter coats were warmer than coats on any other colour based on “God’s truth” in Proverbs 31:21. It’s laughable stuff and it brings disrepute on Christ and the Gospel. I continue to think that the following words from St. Augustine apply perfectly to Dr. MacArthur’s unfortunate message at Ligonier. He should have known better!
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
(St. Augustine — De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim/”The Literal Meaning of Genesis”)
21. Keith
March 19, 2007
2:41 AM
Chris, you wrote:
If the bones found in the osuary would prove beyond doubt that they are really Jesus’ bones then we would all do well to abandon the christian faith, shut the ligonier conference down and go home defeated.
And I responded with my previous comments. I’d encouarge you to go back and read what I wrote in light of what I have just quoted you as saying.
This is a matter of epistemology. You are under the impression that the Bible can be disproven, and this is false.
Keith
22. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 19, 2007
8:18 AM
Chris,
I didn’t write to you what you said I did. It was Keith in comment #10.
23. Kyle
March 19, 2007
11:00 AM
I love MacArthur, and have benefitted hugely from his eposition of the Bible and his international ministry. He is a godly man and a gifted teacher.
But I tend to agree with Kathleen and Puddlegum here. I think MacArthur is off-base to suggest that the writers of Scripture unknowingly wrote scientifically advanced information. I don’t believe the books of the Bible are scientific documents at all; further, the Biblical writers wrote from their limited perspective of the world. I.E. - when the psalmist says “From the rising of the sun to the setting of the same, the name of the Lord will be praised,” he is not saying (as Luther suggested) that the sun literally rises in one place and sets in another, (rather than that the world revolves around the sun); rather, he is writing based on what he sees in nature (since it APPEARS that the sun rises in one place and sets in another).
So I love and respect MacArthur very much, but I don’t think he’s right here.
24. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 19, 2007
2:34 PM
The Bible MUST be accurate scientifically, or it is NOT the word of God. In the same way, it must be accurate historically, or it is not the word of God.
Since I have not noticed anyone here providing the Scriptural examples of what MacArthur was talking about, I will provide them…since I was at the conference and wrote them down. According to MacArthurs, here are some areas where the Bible has had it right all along…well before ‘science’ had it correct:
HYDROLOGY - waters of the earth
Is. 55:10
Job 36:27-28
Ps. 135:7
Job 26:8
28:10
Ps. 33:7
Job 38:22
ASTRONOMY
Ps. 103
Job 22:12, 25:5
Jer. 31:35-37, 33:2
1 Cor. 15:41
Ps. 19:6
GEOLOGY
Is. 40:12
Ps. 104:5-8
GEODICY (roundness of the earth)
Is. 40:22
Pr. 8:27
Job 38:13-14
Luke 17:31
GRAVITY
Job 26:7
METEROLOGY
Job 28:25
PHYSIOLOGY
Lev. 17:11
25. chris
March 19, 2007
4:34 PM
Chris wrote: “If the bones found in the osuary would prove beyond doubt that they are really Jesus’ bones then we would all do well to abandon the christian faith, shut the ligonier conference down and go home defeated.”
Keith responded: This is a matter of epistemology. You are under the impression that the Bible can be disproven, and this is false.
My response: I understand that this is a matter of epistemology. I do not actually believe that the bible can be disproven. I was speaking theoretically. I was trying to make the point that we believers do not make a distinction between faith and science. The Bible is not at odds with science or history because the Bible is the revealed word of God and the God of the Bible is also the God of science and history. I am not always good at articulating my point so I apologize if that was the impression that I gave (the bible can be disproven)
My statement about the bones in the osuary (theoretically speaking) is no different then paul’s satement when he said
“…if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.” 1 Cor. 15:14-15
26. Puddleglum
March 19, 2007
5:10 PM
Brian,
The Bible is not a book of science and therefore does NOT have to get it scientifically right to be the word of God. The examples you cite only reflect general knowledge available to the people of the time who, contrary to popular opinion, were not dunces when it came to knowing a thing or two about nature. Let’s look at a few, shall we:
Psalm 19:6 (English Standard Version)
Its [the sun’s] rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them,
and there is nothing hidden from its heat.
This is precicely NOT the way the sun works “scientifically”. But it is perfectly acceptable phenomenological language.
Job 26:7 (English Standard Version)
He stretches out the north over the void
and hangs the earth on nothing.
Again, the people of the day were not dunces. In general they knew that the earth was, like the moon and stars, “hang[ing] on nothing”
Isaiah 40:22 (English Standard Version)
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
The roundness of the earth was knowledge availabe by simple observation. Climb any moderately high mountain and the sphericity of the earth becomes apparent.
Isaiah 40:12 (English Standard Version)
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand
and marked off the heavens with a span,
enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure
and weighed the mountains in scales
and the hills in a balance?
This is lovely anthropomorphical language about the Creator but it is NOT scientific language. Unless we want to attribute literal hands to God we had better stop.
Isaiah 55:10-11 (English Standard Version)
For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
As a preacher of the Word this is a favourite verse of mine, full of comfort and confidence. What it is not is a a special revelation of the hydrological cycle, the knowledge of which, without the later scientific precision, was common in the ancient world.
My good brother, rest assured that your hope and confidence does not rest in such contrived interpretations.
27. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 19, 2007
5:29 PM
MY good brother, puddle…I contrived NO interpretations of my own. I merely provided the Scripture that MacArthur gave in his message.
Having said that…you are completely wrong about the Bible. If it is inaccurate in science, history, mathematics, etc., then it CANNOT be considered accurate with respect to its revelation about God. What? Was God sleeping during the parts concerning science, and awake and giving divine inspiration on the parts concerning truth? What, in your opinion, makes the Bible the word of God?
Finally, with respect to this statement from you concerning the Sun: This is precicely NOT the way the sun works “scientifically”. But it is perfectly acceptable phenomenological language…
Are you saying that the Sun - along with the rest of our solar system - is NOT traveling through the universe on one gigantic journey of an orbit of its own? Is our solar system not moving through the universe?
If you answer no other question, please answer this one:
According to you, what makes the Bible the word of God?
Thanks.
28. Puddleglum
March 19, 2007
8:32 PM
Brian,
I’m sorry if it seemed as if I was attributing the contrivances to you. I am aware that they belong to Dr. MacArthur who should have known better. Frankly, I am perplexed by your question: “Are you saying that the Sun - along with the rest of our solar system - is NOT traveling through the universe on one gigantic journey of an orbit of its own? Is our solar system not moving through the universe?”
Is this really what Dr. MacArthur thinks Psalm 19:6 means? If that is the case I must echo the words of DA Carson concerning the MacArthur commentaries that they “betray too little time and care taken with the text, so that they cannot be read as reliable commentary” (Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey)
As for your other question: According to you, what makes the Bible the word of God? My short answer is that the Bible is the written word of God, written for the primary purpose of testifying to the living Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, our Saviour (John 5:39; Luke 24:27). It is not a magic book containing the kind of stuff we have been discussing.
29. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 19, 2007
8:59 PM
Puddle,
Does the Bible contradict science (or any other area) at any point in its didactic teaching? If so, does that mean the Bible is wrong at some point?
Another thought regarding your comment: The roundness of the earth was knowledge availabe by simple observation. Climb any moderately high mountain and the sphericity of the earth becomes apparent.
Then why did so many think it was flat?
30. Puddleglum
March 19, 2007
9:20 PM
Brian,
1) It is not an “error”, for example, for Ps. 19 to speak of the sun “rising”. It is widely accepted phenomenological language even though it is not “scientifically” accurate.
2) the “flat earth” position was not as widespread as we imagine.
3) Could you please tell me if that is really Dr. MacArthur’s interpretation of Psaml 19:6? I sure hope not but I would like to know.
Thanks - gotta run, I have a hockey game to watch!
31. Kathleen
March 19, 2007
11:04 PM
Brian writes: The Bible MUST be accurate scientifically, or it is NOT the word of God.
This position would seem to put you in a pretty difficult position when facing passages such as Psalm 93 (“the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.”) where the Bible writers refer to a fixed earth against the reality of a revolving and rotating planet. A similar belief is repeated in Psalm 104 and scores of other examples are available.
Faced with discrepancies between the beliefs of a primitive era and now-known fact, few options would be available to your position.
One, of course, would be to claim that the earth really is fixed and immovable.
Two would be to conclude that the Bible is not the word of God.
Three would be to make an attempt to explain away what is clearly written with the insertion of facts that are now known but were not known at the time nor are part of the text: “well, what they really meant is not that the earth is fixed, but that it’s fixed in it’s revolving orbit and rotation schedule.”
The alternative to all of these choices, of course, is to simply say that the Bible writers were the products of their time. When they refer to the setting sun or the fixed earth, that’s how the ordinary observer thousands of years ago would describe it, without benefit of later astronomical findings.
According to MacArthurs, here are some areas where the Bible has had it right all along…well before ‘science’ had it correct:
Since I’ve already examined several of these claims and found them rather desperate, can you pick out the two or three you find most convincing and share them with the board?
32. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 20, 2007
12:08 AM
Psalm 93 (“the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.”) where the Bible writers refer to a fixed earth against the reality of a revolving and rotating planet.
Kathleen,
Your liberal theology concerning the God-breathed Scriptures is shining brightly through your (mis)handling of this verse. Context, context, context…context is everything.
You conveniently change “world” in the passage to mean only the “earth” (and then you jump from that to an assumption that the Psalmist is referring to its rotation and orbit), which certainly suits your inadequate view of the Bible, and shows your lack of understanding and little faith with regard to inspired Scripture.
Now, if Ps. 93:1 had contained the word ‘erets’ (which is denoted as ‘earth’ in the English versions at least 188 times in the Psalms alone), then I might be inclined to agree that you might have the beginning of a point. But instead, the word in that verse is ‘tebel’. Also, the verse in no way demonstrates that it is referring to the earth and its lack of rotation or orbit!
Show me your “scores” of other examples, please.
I would say to go do some homework and study the very word of God you are attempting to denigrate here before coming back and trying to make ridiculous accusations and meaningless assertions, but I suspect that would be pointless.
Please excuse any harshness in my remarks…but I get a little upset when someone attempts to discredit the word of God.
Your comments throughout this post and others concerning this conference demonstrate what you really believe about the infallible revelation of God contained in the inspired Scriptures, and also what you believe about contending for THE truth.
Grace and peace to you…especially grace.
Brian
33. kathleen
March 20, 2007
1:13 AM
Chris writes: You conveniently change “world” in the passage to mean only the “earth” (and then you jump from that to an assumption that the Psalmist is referring to its rotation and orbit), which certainly suits your inadequate view of the Bible, and shows your lack of understanding and little faith with regard to inspired Scripture.
Chris seems to be unaware that the words ‘earth’ and ‘world’ are used interchangably throughout the Bible, especially in Psalms. Let’s look at just a few examples:
Psa 33:8 — Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
Psa 19:4 — Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
Psa 24:1 — The earth [is] the LORD’S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Psa 77:18 — The voice of thy thunder [was] in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.
Psa 89:11 — The heavens [are] thine, the earth also [is] thine: [as for] the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them.
Psa 98:9 — Before the LORD; for he cometh to judge the earth : with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity.
1 Chron 16:30 — Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Job 34:13 — Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?
Is Chris seriously contending that ‘world’ and ‘earth’ refer to two different things in these passages?
So, when you look at the verses that refer to a fixed earth/world, it doesn’t matter whether ‘tebel’ or ‘erets’ is used. Both are used to say the same thing.
Psa 93:1 — the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
Psalm 104:5 says virtually the same thing using erets/earth instead of tebel/world — [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.
1 Chron 16:30 — Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Show me your “scores” of other examples, please.
Are three examples of a fixed earth/world not enough?
Have you found any examples from MacArthur that convincingly demonstrate ‘ahead-of-its-time’ Biblical knowledge?
34. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 20, 2007
9:46 AM
I’m not here to defend MacArthur.
I am here to defend the infallibility of the Scriptures…which you are attempting to tear asunder.
In quoting all those other verses, there is one thing you still did not do, and that is you did not engage the very verse you initially cited, Ps. 93:1, in your attempt to prove that the Psalmist was referring to the rotation and orbit of the earth, and was in error with his statement about the earth.
Please exegete for us how this verse is referring to the rotation and orbit of the earth, as that was your point to begin with in attempting to show that the Bible contains error.
SIDE NOTE: Are you seriously trying to state that world always means earth (and vica-versa), and the two are equally interchangeable? Check out the usage of erets (2500 times) and compare it with tebel (36 times) throughout the OT.
By the way, my name is not Chris. I fear your lack of observation to that truth may reveal how you are handling God’s word.
35. Puddleglum
March 20, 2007
3:18 PM
Brian,
I’m sorry, brother, but you are being rude to a lady. That’s unacceptable and I’m sure your mum raised you better than that.
As for the scriptures they need no defense from you.
Peace,
R. (Puddleglum)
36. Keith
March 20, 2007
6:10 PM
Chris, thanks for your clarifcation! I am glad to see that you trust God over science (unlike some others here).
Brian, you are correct in saying that the Bible must be scientifically and historically accurate—-just don’t be led to believe that the Bible can actually be disproven or discredited historically or scientifically.
Puddleglum, I am saddened by your comments. Apparently the Bible doesn’t have to touch on matters of reality. The Bible is written by the creator of the universe, therefore when it touches on historical or scientific subjects, it must be correct. Whether the Bible was written for the express purpose of being a science or history textbook is irrelevant.
You quote lots of verses in which poetic language is used to describe the heavenly bodies from an earthly perspective. This in way invalidates the Bible’s truth claims on matters of history or “science” (as the origins contoversy might be called).
37. Puddleglum
March 20, 2007
6:51 PM
Keith says: You quote lots of verses in which poetic language is used to describe the heavenly bodies from an earthly perspective. This in way invalidates the Bible’s truth claims on matters of history or “science”
Keith. This is precicely my point. The phenomenological language of the Bible gives us a look at nature from “an earthly perspective” which in no way invalidates the truth of scripture. Please tell me, where in anything I have written so far do you get the impression that my goal is to invalidate the Bible? Nowhere do I say the Bible is inaccurate I simply say that its descriptions are not scientific and they are not trying to be.
Do you mind terribly if I give you a bit of personal testimony here? I came to know the Lord Jesus and believe in Him as my Saviour at the age of nineteen. The way this hapenned is that I simply read the Bible, on my own, without any human witness to guide me. What I saw in the Bible was… JESUS! He stood out. The whole book was clearly about Him and leading to Him. I knew that I had to do something about this Jesus. That I had to respond to Him. And, by His grace, I did.
I also fell in love the Bible, which is a good thing. But then something else hapenned. It wasn’t very long before the love of the Bible became more important than the love of Jesus. I was learning stuff, all good stuff, about inspiration and infallibility and so on and pretty soon the Bible became something to be defended rather than a messenger of Jesus. I sadly recall “witnessing” to friends in college by writing “scientific” essays on the Genesis Flood and Joshua’s long day rather than by simply telling them about Jesus. Slowly I lost sight of Jesus in the Bible. The Bible became a compendium of “proofs” and “evidence that demands a verdict”. It was no longer about Jesus. The Joy was gone.
Thankfully that “phase” didn’t last very long. By the grace of God and with the help of friends I started to seek and to see Jesus is the sacred pages again. And a lot of trifles ceased to matter to me.
So I don’t care anymore that the Bible’s measurements for the laver cannot be mathematically correct - they were never meant to be. What I do care about is that Jesus is the Laver for me and that all my sins are washed away in that Laver, by grace through faith.
R.
38. Kathleen
March 20, 2007
10:26 PM
Brian writes: I’m not here to defend MacArthur.
Then I’ll assume that you’ve found no evidence to support MacArthurs’s claim of ‘ahead-of-its-time’ scientific knowledge in the Bible, correct?
Brian:In quoting all those other verses, there is one thing you still did not do, and that is you did not engage the very verse you initially cited, Ps. 93:1, in your attempt to prove that the Psalmist was referring to the rotation and orbit of the earth, and was in error with his statement about the earth.
Let’s look at what I wrote.
“So, when you look at the verses that refer to a fixed earth/world, it doesn’t matter whether ‘tebel’ or ‘erets’ is used. Both are used to say the same thing.
Psa 93:1 — the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
Psalm 104:5 says virtually the same thing using erets/earth instead of tebel/world — [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.
1 Chron 16:30 — Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.”
Now, given all these reference to a fixed earth/world, how would you conclude that the Bible writers properly understood the fact that our planet actually rotates and revolves?
Brian:Are you seriously trying to state that world always means earth (and vica-versa), and the two are equally interchangeable?
Nope. I made no claim about “always” because that would be rather foolish, no?
I’m saying exactly what I said before:
- That in Psalm 93, the Bible writers refer to a fixed earth when in fact the earth rotates and revolves.
- That in all the following places, the words ‘earth’ and ‘world’ are used interchangeably:
Psa 33:8 — Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
Psa 19:4 — Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
Psa 24:1 — The earth [is] the LORD’S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Psa 77:18 — The voice of thy thunder [was] in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.
Psa 89:11 — The heavens [are] thine, the earth also [is] thine: [as for] the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them.
Psa 98:9 — Before the LORD; for he cometh to judge the earth : with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity.
1 Chron 16:30 — Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Job 34:13 — Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?
If you dispute either of these points, kindly provide your argument.
BrianBy the way, my name is not Chris.
Correct. So the questions addressed to Chris should properly be applied to you, including: do you believe that the words ‘earth’ and/or ‘world’ refer to different entities in these passages or in Psalm 93?
39. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 20, 2007
11:25 PM
Kathleen, you said:
Both are used to say the same thing.
So, if you didn’t mean always in that statement, what did you mean…sometimes, most of the time, very few times…what?
Then I’ll assume that you’ve found no evidence to support MacArthurs’s claim of ‘ahead-of-its-time’ scientific knowledge in the Bible, correct?
No. What that means is, I am not here to defend MacArthur, just as I said. Don’t read into it something that is not there. That’s the problem with your handling of Ps. 93…you read into the verse that the Psalmist is referring to rotation and orbit of the earth. You assume that, and that is a false assumption. And again, the Psalmist is talking about the world, not just the earth.
Having said that, the Bible does speak of the earth being a sphere long before science thought it was flat, and then acknowledging that it was round.
40. Puddleglum
March 21, 2007
1:18 AM
Let me say again that the ancients did not generally think the earth was flat. That is a myth.
41. Kathleen
March 21, 2007
2:16 AM
Brian: So, if you didn’t mean always in that statement, what did you mean…sometimes, most of the time, very few times…what?
I meant exactly what I said: that the words ‘world’ and ‘earth’ are used interchangeably in the verses I cited.
If you’re disputing this, you’ll have to address the evidence.
That’s the problem with your handling of Ps. 93…you read into the verse that the Psalmist is referring to rotation and orbit of the earth.
Not at all. The writers of Psalms evince no knowlege of rotation or orbit, which is why both Psalms 93 and 104 (along with 1 Chron) refer to a fixed earth/world. Just what one would expect in a era prior to astronomical understanding of planetary rotation and orbit.
And again, the Psalmist is talking about the world, not just the earth.
Since I’ve already shown that ‘world’ and ‘earth’ are used interchangeably throughout Psalms, you’ll need to support your apparent assertion that the words have different meanings.
Furthermore — whether you pick “earth” (erets) or “world” (tebel) — both are described as fixed/unmovable in these two verses:
Psa 93:1: the world (tebel) also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
Psa 104: [You who] laid the foundations of the earth (erets) , [So that] it should not be moved forever.
As I said before, it matters not whether you pick earth/erets or world/tebel — Psalms uses the words interchangeably, and describes both as fixed/unmovable.
42. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 21, 2007
10:26 AM
Kathleen,
Rather than go into great detail and lengths to try and show you that your view of what these verses are referring to is wrong and self-serving to your position concerning the Bible and science, allow me to quote a couple of quick comments from some respected Christian commentators:
On the last part of Psalm 93:1 - Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
JFB - God is described as a King entering on His reign, and, for robes of royalty, investing Himself with the glorious attributes of His nature. The result of His thus reigning is the durability of the world.
Matthew Henry - The preserving of the powers of nature and the course of nature is what the God of nature must have the glory of; and we who have the benefit thereof daily are very careless and ungrateful if we give him not the glory of it. Though God clothes himself with majesty, yet he condescends to take care of this lower world and to settle its affairs; and, if he established the world, much more will he establish his church, that it cannot be moved.
On Psalm 104:5 - He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever.
JFB - The earth is firmly fixed by His power.
Matthew Henry - Though he has hung it upon nothing (Job 26:2), ponderibus librata suis—balanced by its own weight, yet it is as immovable as if it had been laid upon the surest foundations. He has built the earth upon her basis, so that though it has received a dangerous shock by the sin of man, and the malice of hell strikes at it, yet it shall not be removed for ever, that is, not till the end of time, when it must give way to the new earth.
43. Keith
March 21, 2007
7:44 PM
Puddleglum, you wrote:
Please tell me, where in anything I have written so far do you get the impression that my goal is to invalidate the Bible?
I never made this argument. I did say, however, that the Bible does contain verses pertinent to science and history and these verses must be correct in a scientific and historical sense, whereas you wrote: The Bible is not a book of science and therefore does NOT have to get it scientifically right to be the word of God. It depends on what you mean by “it”. The verses you quoted were poetic, therefore its silly to say that they aren’t scientific. On the other hand, Gen. 1-11 is written as history, therefore it is a true history.
I also see that you don’t understand apologetics. Apologetics is an evangelism tool and a means of strengthening one’s own faith—-its not an end in itself. True apologetics is Christ-centered, not debate-centered. Indeed, the “charter verse” of apologetics, 1 Peter 3:15, says that we must “sanctify the Lord God in our hearts” because the defense of the faith is about Him, not us. Christ is the beginning, not just the end, of apologetics. So I hope you won’t abandon apologetics but will instead learn its context. Not everyone needs proofs or evidences. Some people just need a friend. Indeed, for most of those without Christ, they aren’t going to care how much we know until they know how much we care.
Keith
44. Keith
March 21, 2007
7:52 PM
Brian, Kathleen’s problem is her low view of scripture. She thinks that the Bible was written by men’s reasoning alone, without the help of God. Apparently God couldn’t communicate His word in such a way that it reflects what He actually created. Nevetheless, you might find this useful in combating her error.
45. Puddleglum
March 22, 2007
3:23 AM
Kevin,
Just a quick word and I’m out of here. The verses that I used were the verses that Brian (quoting MacArthur?) used to illustrate his point (back in comment # 24). It was exactly my point that none of these verses justified the point he was attempting to make. On this I think we agree.
I am surprised that no one has interacted with the St. Augustine quote I posted. I do think he’s right and pertinent to our discussion of Dr. MacArthur presentation. For all the good he does this kind of talk only serves to make us look stupid and, worse, to cause an UNNECESSARY obstacle to be placed between legitimate scientists and the Gospel.
Peace. It’s been good chatting with you all.
R.
46. Kyle
March 22, 2007
10:50 AM
I think what Puddlegum is saying, and I agree, is that this conversation has outlasted its usefulness. This should probably go into the archives.
Let’s agree that the Bible is the inspired, infallible word of the living God, and that whatever we think of Dr. MacArthur’s statements about its scientific data, we should read it and live by it.
Grace,
Kyle
47. Puddleglum
March 22, 2007
8:26 PM
Kyle,
Amen!
48. Kathleen
March 23, 2007
2:18 AM
Brian, it’s fairly obvious that your selectively-chosen commentaries don’t help you much.
Even these commentators – where they reference the earth at all — declare it to be “firmly fixed” and “cannot be moved”.
Furthermore, Matthew Henry (dead nearly 300 years) couldn’t possibly have commented on the Psalms 104 translation by the NASB (1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995), which is an outlier version that you selected merely because it is the only translation to swap out “never be moved” and replace it with “tottering”. Tottering?
To see exactly how out of the mainstream it is, let’s look at all the other translations.
NIV: He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
NJKV: You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever,
KJV: [Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.
NLT: You placed the world on its foundation so it would never be moved.
ESV: He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.
RSV: Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.
ASV: Who laid the foundations of the earth, That it should not be moved for ever.
Young: He hath founded earth on its bases, It is not moved to the age and for ever.
Webster: He laid the earth upon its foundations: it shall not be removed for ever.
HNV: He laid the foundations of the eretz, That it should not be moved forever.
Do you have a better argument?
49. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
March 23, 2007
9:09 AM
One thing I have learned in my years of discussing various issues is that you cannot reason with unreasonableness.
And you, Kathleen, are unreasonable. God be with you in your search for the truth.
50. David Pearson
March 23, 2007
9:56 AM
This has probably outlived its usefulness – but I just have to say - What in the world am I missing here? We know that in our whole solar system has a “fixed” nature. By this I mean that the earth has a certain “fixed” orbit around the sun which allows the earth to sustain life. Closer and we would burn up. Further away and we would freeze. Our moon has a perfectly fixed orbit around the earth – so perfect and fixed that it influences the tides. So “fixed” that people that live on the coasts are able to draw up tidal charts with precision.
Look in the heavens at night and see the same constellations that people saw a thousand years ago. They are in the same “established” order. So predictable in their placement, that for centuries mariners relied on them for navigation. Saturn is still in the same “fixed” orbit it was in when Galileo peeked at it through his telescope.
In the Middle East people still walk on the same “foundations of the earth” that Jesus walked on while He dwelled on the earth. We still sail on the same “seas” God created in Genesis 1.
There’s nothing inaccurate or contradictory whatsoever about these verses when thought about like this and more importantly - we’re not striving to create some sort of false conflict. Far more is being made of what these verses are saying by Kathleen and others. This is sophistry. She was referring God a “murderer “in another post. Think she has it right now? To proclaim God a murderer is to completely deny 1 John 1:5 “This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” Like Brian said, may God open eyes and hearts to His truth.