Replies

thought exercise:

you go back in time a mere 2300 years, to... Athens.
you attempt to explain any modern science to the philosophers there... in Attic Greek.

you will immediately run into the problem that they simply don't have the specific words and concepts embedded and extant in their language to comprehend any but the vaguest outline of what is being described - and you will not be able to make up new words that they'd understand.

Now, add in your temporary acquisition of the powers of the Almighty.
You still have the same problem!
Even if you gave them detailed visions and inspired understanding... how would *they* communicate that to their disciples???

so for this thought exercise, even more so for trying to explain *everything* to a bunch of neolithic goat herders.

any explanation given would be pared down to the point of complete dissimilarity to fact - yet it can still remain absolutely true (at least about the important stuff it is actually trying to convey).

parables, allegory, fables - can all be 100% true while having not one bit of factual accuracy.

to avoid insulting anyone's creed, let's jump to a harmless substitute: Aesop.
I surely hope that not one adult alive today is under the impression that there has ever *actually* been a fox capable of human speech and hungry for grapes... yet, otoh, the truth of that story and its "I bet they're sour anyway" punchline is so evident and applicable to human behavior.

I hope I have expressed myself well in this post.

Your thought exercise is basically what I had in mind. I just didn't want to make the post too long. Of course God would know that the Bible is going to be read mainly by people of very limited education, even if they can read. But I believe that He gave the information as accurately as possible, in a way that most people could understand, in as few words as possible and yet be true.

I think that's where some of the issue scientists have with the creation account comes from. I believe that it's true, that it is not a parable or allergory but it could be interpreted that way by some because of it's necessary briefness in dealing with the subject. There simply was not the time, or space, or necessity, to deal with it in the depth needed to give enough details to verify it by today's scientific standards. Since the main message of the Bible is not concerned with the creation of the universe, earth, and man, only enough information is given to explain what follows. It sort of just sets the stage to explain the need for the redemption of man.

to avoid insulting anyone's creed, let's jump to a harmless substitute: Aesop. I surely hope that not one adult alive today is under the impression that there has ever *actually* been a fox capable of human speech and hungry for grapes... yet, otoh, the truth of that story and its "I bet they're sour anyway" punchline is so evident and applicable to human behavior.

I've never seen Aesop used as an example in that argument before. Very good.