[net.religion] Why must the Bible be made to fit in with science?

laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/04/85)

Because, if the two are not consistent then either one is wrong,
both are wrong, or it is possible for 2 contradictory things to
both be true. (Actually, if the last is the case then a lot of
science is wrong, so let us leave it at that.)

For instance, suppose in the Bible it was written that Jesus said
``The world is flat.'' Note that I am purposely using something which
Jesus is *not* recorded as saying, so that noone will argue the point.

``Science'' says that the world is round.

The two are not consistent with each other.

This would be a serious problem. Either the Bible is wrong, or science is,
or the world can be both flat and round. I think, in this case, we would
assume that science is right and that either Jesus was misquoted, or
what he was saying was not supposed to be taken literally, or that what he
was saying *was* supposed to be taken literally -- and bingo! Jesus tells
lies, or is fallible!

problem would be of great interest, do you not?

Laura Creighton
utzoo!laura

mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/08/85)

In article <5417@utzoo.UUCP> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:

>Because, if the two are not consistent then either one is wrong,
>both are wrong, or it is possible for 2 contradictory things to
>both be true. (Actually, if the last is the case then a lot of
>science is wrong, so let us leave it at that.)

>For instance, suppose in the Bible it was written that Jesus said
>``The world is flat.'' Note that I am purposely using something which
>Jesus is *not* recorded as saying, so that noone will argue the point.

>``Science'' says that the world is round.

>The two are not consistent with each other.

>This would be a serious problem. Either the Bible is wrong, or science is,
>or the world can be both flat and round. I think, in this case, we would
>assume that science is right and that either Jesus was misquoted, or
>what he was saying was not supposed to be taken literally, or that what he
>was saying *was* supposed to be taken literally -- and bingo! Jesus tells
>lies, or is fallible!

Let's take a more arguable one (please, no lengthy arguments): the story of
Cain and Abel.  There are some rather obvious inconsistencies in the story,
particularly with respect to the people who would kill Cain, whose origin is
(to say the least) unclear.  I would not reject the story, however; one can
take the story as illustrating a principle.  In the same way, one need not
believe in the literal truth of most of the "mythological" material.  Of
course, these leads to the problem of where to draw the line-- but no one
said the Bible was easy.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe