But they are speaking at two different levels, hence there are many misunderstandings. The only metaphor that comes to mind is a poor one: the Constitution v. the Internal Revenue Code.
You say: "Truth always trumps facts." Fine. But if reading Genesis, even in the original Hebrew, produces any apparent conflicts with what science has learned, then ... what shall we do? That's always the issue for some folks in these threads. How do we resolve scripture/science conflicts, without burning either bibles or scientists?
But before I deal with the cosmic issues, let me comment on your metaphor about the "two different levels," the Constitution (presumably analogous to scripture) v. the Internal Revenue Code (a really ghastly metaphor for science). Happily, there is no need to resort to metaphor. We have scripture, which -- although divinely inspired -- is the physical work of numerous men over many centuries, and which is also the work of various committees who have decided what stays in and what gets removed. If you're looking for a procedural analogy to the Internal Revenue Code ... [see footnote]
Footnote: I'm attempting to be humorous here, so don't turn purple on me. Any comparision to the Code is, I hope you realize, not to be taken seriously. I don't really see any similarity of the Code to scripture, and I hope you're not serious about using it as a metaphor for science.Returning now to the cosmic issue: scripture is one of those "two levels" you spoke of. The same Author who inspired scripture has also created the whole universe, and it's there to be "read." That's what scientists do. And unlike scripture, the universe is still in God's original handwriting (so to speak).
So to return to your statement that: "Truth always trumps facts," we need to figure out, between observations of physical reality on the one hand, and our personal understanding of scripture on the other hand, which has the higher rank? The Pope has looked into this (as the Galileo affair has dogged his church for centuries). Here's his take:
Faith can never conflict with reason.. The Pope's statement on Galileo and science/scripture conflicts. An excerpt:
In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition.I realize that most around here don't look to the Pope for guidance in such matters, but he's at least given the matter a lot of thought, so his opinion on the "conflict" problem is certainly worth considering. Some other theologians have not addressed the issue in anywhere near the depth that he has, and some haven't considered it at all -- which is why we have "young-earthers."
At bottom, there is no scientific argument against the declaration that God created “all that there is” last Thursday.
Personally, I see perfect harmony between Genesis and science because:
b) The perspective of time (space/time) passing changes from the inception of “all that there is” in Genesis 1-3 to earth in Genesis 4 when Adam is banished to mortality.
c) Relativity and inflationary theory tell us that time is relative. Six days from the space/time coordinates of the inception of this universe is equal to roughly 14 billion years from our space/time coordinates on earth.
Schroeder: Age of the Universe
In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.
The theological difference hinges on the interpretation of Scriptures, particularly Romans 5:12-14 and I Corinthians 15:42-48. A large segment of Christians (including Roman Catholics) view Adam as the first ensouled man, a smaller segment view Adam as the first mortal man.
My musings are squarely in the middle, i.e. 6000 years since Adam at earth’s space/time coordinates plus 6 days from the inception space/time coordinates and Adam as the first mortal man with the breath of God (neshama – Genesis 2). All other creatures in Genesis 1 have a soul, a nephesh, but not a neshama.
It is a waste of time to argue a theological point such as YEC using science. It is doctrine and must be argued with Scripture, lexicons and ancient manuscripts. If one is unable to make such a theological argument, I suggest it is better just to ignore the YEC post altogether.
Among Christians are those of us whose vision of the Word of God is Jesus Christ Himself (John 1 and Rev 19) – that the Word of God is alive and speaks to us by the indwelling Spirit (I Cor 2, Romans 8, John 15-17) to lead us into Truth. To us, the Scriptures are inerrant but do not substitute for His Person.
There are other Christians who put Scriptures on par with Tradition of the Church. The interpretation is made by the Church leader, or Pope, who is to be received as the vicar of Christ on earth.
And there are other Christians who put the emphasis on the Scriptures themselves. These will more often refer to the Scriptures as the Word of God.
And then there are the Christians who are cavalier about all of this.
Thus, when you ask: