02 Aug 2007, 8:37 am
Gromit wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
6. Nothing possible conflicts with Genesis.
Because Genesis is always right? Or everything else is wrong?
I think one part of the answer is in one of Ragtime's previous posts in this thread:
Ragtime wrote:
Scripture is God-breathed, which means that it was dictated. God told men concepts to write down, sometimes word-for-word, but both ways, they were instructed by God to write down what He gave them, even when they didn't understand it, as Peter mentions in his first epistle.
If you add the assumption that God never misleads, it follows that there can't be a real conflict. An apparent conflict through lack of understanding is still possible under these assumptions.
Ragtime, what do you do if your best interpretation of scripture and the best available scientific understanding are in conflict? If you assume that the conflict must be caused by some error in understanding, you still don't know whether the error is in the science or in your interpretation of scripture. (You may object to the word "interpretation". What you call literal reading with understanding of context is interpretation to me. Can we avoid getting sidetracked on that point?)
You are human and you can make mistakes, like the rest of us. You said so yourself. So if you find a conflict between well established scientific opinion and your interpretation of the bible, what do you do?
As you'd probably imagine, it depends.
If you're asking whether I sometimes change my opinion of what a Bible verse means, yes, on further education, I do.
