Biblical literalism vs. science - Why is evolution the sticking point?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Biblical literalists often argue against the theory of evolution by natural selection. Even those who accept microevolution can argue against macroevolution.

However, this is not the only point on which the Bible disagrees with the current understanding of science.

To give a few examples:

1: Pi.

Both 1 Kings 7:23-26 and 2 Chronicles 4:2-5 describe a bowl which has a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits. If these measurements are to be held as accurate (which Biblical literalism implies they must), then that makes Pi exactly 3. It's not, however, it's an irrational number, beginning 3.14315926535...and continuing on to an infinite number of decimal places.

Or, at least, that is the currently accepted value of Pi in science and mathematics.

2: Astronomy

In Genesis 1: 6-8 the Bible speaks of the "firmament", which is a solid roof over the world. The current scientific understanding holds that there is no solid roof to the world.

In Genesis 1: 16 the moon is referred to as a light. The current understanding holds that the moon is not a light, but a reflector.

In Revelation 8-10 a star is described as being a small object which falls from the sky. The current understanding is that stars are massive objects, many times the size of the Earth, which count our sun amongst their number.

Probably the most well-known is that Ecclesiastes 1: 5 describes a geocentric solar system and Psalms 93: 1, 96: 10, 104: 5 as well as 1 Chronicles 16:30 all state that the Earth cannot move. The current scientific understanding is that the solar system is heliocentric.

I describe the latter as being the most well-known because Galileo's trial by the Catholic Church for heresy for advocating for heliocentrism, precisely because it contradicted the Bible. It seems in many ways very comparable to the Biblical arguments against evolution.

The two main defences I see of accepting these things are:

1. These parts of the Bible were meant to be metaphorical. Obviously this cannot be the position of a Biblical literalist, because by definition a Biblical literalist believes the Bible to be literally true. Furthermore, if one can accept these passages as not being meant to be literally true, then by what logic can the same argument be said to be inapplicable to those which contradict evolution?

2. These parts of the Bible are true, but only in as much as they were explaining complicated concepts to people who did not yet have the knowledge and understanding to grasp the complete truth. Again, this simply leaves open the question of why this cannot also be true of those passages which contradict evolution.

So can anybody who is a Biblical literalist and so reject evolution explain their position? Do you also disbelieve in Pi as an irrational number, in the lack of a roof over the world, in the moon as a reflector of light rather than an emitter of light, as stars as large objects in comparison to the Earth, and in heliocentrism? If you do believe in those things and not in evolution, can you explain what arguments you use for the falsehood of evolution which cannot also be applied to those other scientific theories? And can you explain how to determine the difference between the two groups?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

 

[Yennora]

1. Pi, in my Arabic translation (NAV), it is written (About 5 meters) & (About 15 meters), diameter & perimeter consequently, which indicates that the perimeter was NOT exactly 15 meters, but it was estimated to be so, same applies on the diameter, those were rounded numbers, if we estimate the perimeter as 15.4 meters, which can be rounded to 15 meters, and the diameter as 4.901, which can be rounded to 5 meters, we will get the 3.14... Pi as an answer, hopefully, the Bible didn't produce a 7.8 Pi, or 1.3 Pi, it produced an understandable estimate. (I didn't go into full calculations but I can do it more accurately and put my work here if you want.)

2. In the Bible, (Earth = Land) most of the time, when in Astronomy, (Earth = Overall Planet), if you re-read the Bible with this concept, you will see how it doesn't teach a flat earth, specially that the Bible claims that the earth is a "circle" yet with "4" corners/extremities, how is that? I think if you look at Pangaea you will understand what those 4 extremities are.
Check: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o4PMHJ5UuNg/ToA2638Mm_I/AAAAAAAABJY/bia3eKjWtFE/s1600/Pangaea+1_jpg.jpg

And when you look at the Earth from outside (as if from God's perspective) you will see the overall planet as a CIRCLE, here the Bible predicted something that was not known in its time, Check mate! (Yeah, it didn't impose the earth is a square, triangle, rectangle or a pentagon.)
Check: http://ginayajesmer.com/site/wp-con...om-space-Apollo-17-mission-19721207-other.jpg

The firmament in the Bible is not a solid roof, it may be translated to that but is it the case? Let us read Genesis 1:6-8, there are some expressions as "and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament:" & "And God called the firmament Heaven." What is a "Heaven"? A sky, how can a sky be a solid roof? Simply the firmament is the atmospheric layers, and yes, waters were separated, on the ground there is liquid water, in the sky there is vapor water.
Check: http://images.wisegeek.com/diagram-of-the-earths-atmosphere.jpg

Now what do we call the light that reaches us from the Moon? "Moonlight", it is defined as "Moonlight is the light that reaches Earth from the Moon", we know that the sun is the source of that light, but what is the main function of the moon in the night? "Light", if we go into details, it is a reflector, the Bible gives an overview of scientific facts that may look unscientific if taken specifically.

Now for Revelation, what is the book called? "Revelation", let me tell you something, the "beast" in revelation was and is already here on earth, how is that? Can we see a "literal" beast? No, it is a form of religion that will take the people away from God, and there will be supporting beasts to this beast.

So I agree with your 2nd point, the Bible gives us an overall perspective of God's plan, but when it comes to Evolution, i think i would have to write a large essay for why i don't believe in Evolution as it is presented to the crowd, i believe in adaptation, and i also believe that every scientist has the right to think, unlike what happened to Mark Armitage after publishing his "peer-reviewed" article over soft tissue in Dinosaur's fossil.
Check: Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil

He is a respected scientist too and his works may lead to a conclusion that there is a sort of error in radiometric dating that we didn't discover yet, if this error is discovered, the whole evolutionary theory will fall back to "adaptation" and only "adaptation".

I also like your signature and would like to tie it with Armitage's contradicting evidence. "It is a form of lying to ignore evidence that contradicts, or would cause you to question, that which you would like to believe is true."

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

[...]it produced an understandable estimate.

An understandable estimate is not Biblical literalism. Either the Bible is literally true - is the literal, infallible word of God, or it is not. And, as a corollary, an argument that the Bible does not say precisely what God wanted it to say would be either an argument against Biblical literalism, or against the omnipotence of God.

I could go in to the maths, and the fact that the version you're talking about has already converted the units of measurement, but these specifics aren't really the point.

 

[Papias]

Yes, Biblical literalists have to ignore a lot more of reality than just evolution. The biggest is perhaps the fact the the Bibles describe a flat earth, under a hard dome, underwater, with sun & stars as little lights inside the dome. You've already mentioned that, but it turns out there are dozens of other verses which also support it, as well as the fact that it's been recognized & accepted by Biblical scholars (who are Christian) for centuries. I'll put some verses below, along with a link to a current evangelical scholar describing this to fellow Christians who don't know it yet.

There are also plenty of other instances too - the whole global flood myth (recognized by Christian geologists since 1840 as not having actually happened), the tower of Babel (we know how languages evolved and are related to each other), the genetics of Genesis 30:37, and so on, in many other examples as well.

The bottom line is that you are correct - even those who claim to be biblical literalists have usually long ago given up on actually reading their Bible literally (some, however, are actual flat-earthers, they have lots of youtube videos). There are still plenty of them dishonest enough to read it non-literally and say they are reading it literally - and just asking them about the passages in this thread shows that they aren't reading it literally.

To directly answer your question - why reject literalism in dozens of other places in their Bible, yet still cling to it regarding evolution? The answer is social acceptance. In fundamentalist circles, it is still socially acceptable to cling to literalism regarding evolution, and it is not usually socially acceptable to cling to literalism regarding a flat earth, astronomy, the firmament, etc. That's the only reason.

It's still socially acceptable simply due to the time since the discovery. These things take time to be accepted. It took 250 years for heliocentrism to be accepted (hence the galileo trial). It's only been 150 years since Darwin figured evolution out. Give it another century, and evolution deniers will be as common as Biblical flat earthers. They'll still exist, but everyone will know they are a fringe group.

Flat Earth-

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-

The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

We live in a Planetarium-
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Many Christians today have recognized this. Deciding to actually take their Bible literally, they are honest, and hence ascribe to a flat earth.

Papias

 

[Yennora]

An understandable estimate is not Biblical literalism. Either the Bible is literally true - is the literal, infallible word of God, or it is not. And, as a corollary, an argument that the Bible does not say precisely what God wanted it to say would be either an argument against Biblical literalism, or against the omnipotence of God.

I could go in to the maths, and the fact that the version you're talking about has already converted the units of measurement, but these specifics aren't really the point.

I'm sure this has to deal with our interpretation of the word, not how the word is written itself, as i said, someone would read the Bible and come out with a conclusion that the earth is a sphere, and someone else that the earth is flat, exactly as what happens in science, acceleration due to gravity is approx. 9.8ms^-2, fact? Yes. But which theory is right? Newton's or Einstein's?

 

[stevevw]

Biblical literalists often argue against the theory of evolution by natural selection. Even those who accept microevolution can argue against macroevolution.

However, this is not the only point on which the Bible disagrees with the current understanding of science.

To give a few examples:

1: Pi.

Both 1 Kings 7:23-26 and 2 Chronicles 4:2-5 describe a bowl which has a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits. If these measurements are to be held as accurate (which Biblical literalism implies they must), then that makes Pi exactly 3. It's not, however, it's an irrational number, beginning 3.14315926535...and continuing on to an infinite number of decimal places.

Or, at least, that is the currently accepted value of Pi in science and mathematics.

2: Astronomy

In Genesis 1: 6-8 the Bible speaks of the "firmament", which is a solid roof over the world. The current scientific understanding holds that there is no solid roof to the world.

In Genesis 1: 16 the moon is referred to as a light. The current understanding holds that the moon is not a light, but a reflector.

In Revelation 8-10 a star is described as being a small object which falls from the sky. The current understanding is that stars are massive objects, many times the size of the Earth, which count our sun amongst their number.

Probably the most well-known is that Ecclesiastes 1: 5 describes a geocentric solar system and Psalms 93: 1, 96: 10, 104: 5 as well as 1 Chronicles 16:30 all state that the Earth cannot move. The current scientific understanding is that the solar system is heliocentric.

I describe the latter as being the most well-known because Galileo's trial by the Catholic Church for heresy for advocating for heliocentrism, precisely because it contradicted the Bible. It seems in many ways very comparable to the Biblical arguments against evolution.

The two main defences I see of accepting these things are:

1. These parts of the Bible were meant to be metaphorical. Obviously this cannot be the position of a Biblical literalist, because by definition a Biblical literalist believes the Bible to be literally true. Furthermore, if one can accept these passages as not being meant to be literally true, then by what logic can the same argument be said to be inapplicable to those which contradict evolution?

2. These parts of the Bible are true, but only in as much as they were explaining complicated concepts to people who did not yet have the knowledge and understanding to grasp the complete truth. Again, this simply leaves open the question of why this cannot also be true of those passages which contradict evolution.

So can anybody who is a Biblical literalist and so reject evolution explain their position? Do you also disbelieve in Pi as an irrational number, in the lack of a roof over the world, in the moon as a reflector of light rather than an emitter of light, as stars as large objects in comparison to the Earth, and in heliocentrism? If you do believe in those things and not in evolution, can you explain what arguments you use for the falsehood of evolution which cannot also be applied to those other scientific theories? And can you explain how to determine the difference between the two groups?

Thank you in advance for your responses.

I think you are making things to literal and only allowing certain possibilities. I don't think when it comes to the many things like the size of a bowl or the light of the moon has much to do with salvation or science. The bible can still be the word of God through a human filter. A humans understanding of the moon back then may have seemed like it was a glowing light but I don't think they were speaking about the moon in the context of science and what we know today. Even if they were making some scientific statements for that time that may have been considered correct.

Just like science is constantly changing and being updated and it has been wrong about many things depending on the time in history. Otherwise we would be expecting the bible to be a 21st century information book about everything science that would explain the future as well. The bible is not that sort of book and should not be used that way. There are different sections which are about events, songs, poems, and there are also prophesies and visions. In fact the bible can even have contradictions and mistakes because it was written by humans. God didn't control humans and make his exact words come out of their mouths. The basic message that runs through the book is about Gods relationship with humans and this culminates in Jesus.

 

[AV1611VET]

Biblical literalists often argue against the theory of evolution by natural selection.

As they should.

Even those who accept microevolution can argue against macroevolution.

Indeed.

My favorite analogy against microevolution giving rise to macroevolution goes like this:

Macroevolution is like an ape leaving Boston, taking baby steps, and arriving in Los Angeles as a man.

However, this is not the only point on which the Bible disagrees with the current understanding of science.

Correct.

 

[RDKirk]

I describe the latter as being the most well-known because Galileo's trial by the Catholic Church for heresy for advocating for heliocentrism, precisely because it contradicted the Bible.

Actually, that was not the case. Most of the scientists of the day supported the geocentric theory--Galileo was contradicting his own peers. Moreover, his theory at that time actually had some severe unanswered problems that the heliocentric theory did not have. The Church went with the settled majority.

Also, notice that nowhere in the issue was there any denial by anyone that the earth is spherical. Christians had accepted the spherical earth from the beginning of Christianity--the Greeks having proved it 300 years before Christ.

Galileo was persecuted because he personally and directly insulted the Pope--that was political.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Thanks for the additional references. I'll watch that video when I have the chance.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm sure this has to deal with our interpretation of the word, not how the word is written itself, as i said, someone would read the Bible and come out with a conclusion that the earth is a sphere, and someone else that the earth is flat, exactly as what happens in science, acceleration due to gravity is approx. 9.8ms^-2, fact? Yes.

If the value of Pi can be misinterpreted by humans, then why is the same not true for the passages related to evolution?

But which theory is right? Newton's or Einstein's?

Both are correct, but Newton's describes motion within narrower parameters than Einstein's does. If you want to describe the motion of snooker balls or plot a course to get a rocket to Mars, you use Newton's equations, not Einstein's.

 

[AV1611VET]

1: Pi.

Here is the verse in question:

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Notice it has a brim.

If you view it as a brimmed hat turned upside down, you can describe the diameter of the hat by using any coordinate point on the surface of the brim, to its corresponding coordinate opposite it.

(Note: I'm not into geometry, so there may be a better way of saying what I just said.)

By way of example: if a hat has a five inch crown and a four inch brim, you could say the hat is nine inches from brim to brim.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think you are making things to literal and only allowing certain possibilities.

Biblical literalism is taking the Bible to be the literally true, inerrant, infallible word of God.

I don't think when it comes to the many things like the size of a bowl or the light of the moon has much to do with salvation or science.

Whether or not the Earth has a solid dome above it and whether the moon is a light or a reflector are absolutely questions of science. Ones about which the scientific consensus is solid and uncontested, but then that is also true for evolution by natural selection.

The question is on what grounds do Biblical literalists accept the scientific consensus on some questions, but not on evolution, and why evolution specifically.

A humans understanding of the moon back then may have seemed like it was a glowing light but I don't think they were speaking about the moon in the context of science and what we know today. Even if they were making some scientific statements for that time that may have been considered correct.

This is an amalgam of both the defences I posted in the OP. The questions attached to them is what I hope to answer with this thread.

In fact the bible can even have contradictions and mistakes because it was written by humans. God didn't control humans and make his exact words come out of their mouths. The basic message that runs through the book is about Gods relationship with humans and this culminates in Jesus.

This is the antithesis of Biblical literalism and, as such, emphatically not what this thread is about.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Here is the verse in question:

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Notice it has a brim.

If you view it as a brimmed hat turned upside down, you can describe the diameter of the hat by using any coordinate point on the surface of the brim, to its corresponding coordinate opposite it.

(Note: I'm not into geometry, so there may be a better way of saying what I just said.)

By way of example: if a hat has a five inch crown and a four inch brim, you could say the hat is nine inches from brim to brim.

So your answer is that one measurement describes the outside, while the other describes the inside? This seems like an odd, non-useful way of describing something.

But, as I said above, the details and specifics of each example aren't important to this thread. The key questions of this thread are those posed in the OP.

 

[AV1611VET]

In Genesis 1: 6-8 the Bible speaks of the "firmament", which is a solid roof over the world. The current scientific understanding holds that there is no solid roof to the world.

The firmament is not a solid roof over the world.

A "firmament" is a containment area that is populated by specific objects.

The Bible makes reference to three firmaments, known as "heaven" as follows:

First Heaven = atmosphere = sea level to 62 miles up

Second Heaven = outer space = 62 miles to edge of universe

Third Heaven = edge of universe outward = Heaven proper

 

[AV1611VET]

In Genesis 1:16 the moon is referred to as a light. The current understanding holds that the moon is not a light, but a reflector.

This is correct.

The moon is a light reflector, not a light source.

But we're dealing with "proprietary light" now.

Once the sunlight hits the moon and reflects outward, it can now ... and should ... be considered moonlight; unless you want to trace moonlight back to its primary source, then you would call it light from the sun.

 

[AV1611VET]

In Revelation 8-10 a star is described as being a small object which falls from the sky. The current understanding is that stars are massive objects, many times the size of the Earth, which count our sun amongst their number.

Biblical stars are not necessarily suns.

There are different kinds of stars: suns, actors, athletes, performances, etc.

The star the wise men saw at Jesus' birth was probably a hologram.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The firmament is not a solid roof over the world.

A "firmament" is a containment area that is populated by specific objects.

The Bible makes reference to three firmaments, known as "heaven" as follows:

First Heaven = atmosphere = sea level to 62 miles up

Second Heaven = outer space = 62 miles to edge of universe

Third Heaven = edge of universe outward = Heaven proper

Job 37: 18 disagrees with you, claiming that the sky is "strong", or "hard", depending on the translation. This essay is also instructional.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This is correct.

The moon is a light reflector, not a light source.

But we're dealing with "proprietary light" now.

Once the sunlight hits the moon and reflects outward, it can now ... and should ... be considered moonlight; unless you want to trace moonlight back to its primary source, then you would call it light from the sun.

This is an argument for the term "light" being meant as metaphorical in Genesis. Which leaves open the question of why other passages can not also be thought of as metaphorical.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Biblical stars are not necessarily suns.

There are different kinds of stars: suns, actors, athletes, performances, etc.

The word in this instance is "astēr", which is only used to denote a star as an astral body.

Given your signature, I find it interesting that you appear to be arguing against Biblical literalism.

 

[Yennora]

Job 37: 18 disagrees with you, claiming that the sky is "strong", or "hard", depending on the translation. This essay is also instructional.

That's a conversation between Elihu and Job, not "YHWH" and job, show me a verse that says that Elihu had the spirit of God on him when he spoke those things.