Mastering Quantum Physics in a Week
Most people are unable to pick up and master quantum physics in a week. Perhaps not even a year. Neither can many be competent in evolutionary biology or software development after a few days of training.
Why then do people expect themselves and others to understand what the Bible says without some serious education?
In this regard, Christians are also at fault. Many proudly declare that they have read the Bible cover to cover. This doesn't mean a thing as one can read but do not comprehend, or even if they comprehend they may not really get it.
It is for this reason that this discussion has deliberately not mentioned, except on a very few occasions, what the Bible says, and even then the references to the applicable Bible verses are not mentioned. For any reference without the opportunity to get into a detailed explanation will only lead to more ignorance. Bible study is a major undertaking and not the aim of this thesis.
The Bible contains some complex subject matter. John MacArthur took 45 years and 2,273 sermons to explain every verse in the New Testament. Obviously, anyone who spends less effort studying or listening to those sermons, cannot be taken seriously to claiming understanding of the Bible.
Christian theologians are at fault for not spending enough diligence to interpret the Bible, resulting in many variants of Christianity, some at odds with one another, even over fundamentals. However, this does not dilute the starting hypothesis that the Bible is true. Imagine the situation where Newton's Principia Mathematica is available, but not everyone is able to yet understand and verify every detail inside.
The contents of the Bible are complex. Yet, most think they know better. When an airplane crashes or a building collapses, no one, no one, ever, suspects Newton made a mistake. Never!
But, whenever someone, many Christians included, has difficulty seeing logical compatibility between a Bible verse and reality, his first reaction is that the Bible could be wrong. A wannabe expert cites 1 Kings 18:21-40 where Yahweh and Baal were authenticated or rejected by fire and comes to the fast conclusion that it contradicts the claim that God cannot be tested. (I will not attempt to correct him here as the explanation cannot be done with one catchy soundbite.)
I have not verified it myself, but I have not heard of anyone coming up with a counter point that can dismiss the hypothesis that the Bible is true. Not even the evolutionary biology theory that says life began with a single cell billions years ago, because the latter is simply the current favorite but unproven theory.
When a teacher writes something on the board, 50% of the class learns something new, 25% do not have a clue about what is written, and 25% are impatient why the teacher is stating the obvious that they already knew years ago. It is therefore not surprising that when the Bible is presented to people, there will be a range of comprehension. Again, this reality does not detract from the hypothesis that the Bible is true.
To understand the Principia Mathematica requires prior acceptance of the hypothesis that F = ma. To understand the Bible first requires acceptance of the hypothesis that the Bible is true. There is nothing unscientific about this approach. Disproving the hypothesis is a different exercise.
The discussion thus far has avoided going into the details of what the Bible says. If we are at odds over agreement of what is a fact, and how the truth can be denied, it is not the right time or occasion to discuss the Bible yet.
» Next…
Why then do people expect themselves and others to understand what the Bible says without some serious education?
In this regard, Christians are also at fault. Many proudly declare that they have read the Bible cover to cover. This doesn't mean a thing as one can read but do not comprehend, or even if they comprehend they may not really get it.
It is for this reason that this discussion has deliberately not mentioned, except on a very few occasions, what the Bible says, and even then the references to the applicable Bible verses are not mentioned. For any reference without the opportunity to get into a detailed explanation will only lead to more ignorance. Bible study is a major undertaking and not the aim of this thesis.
The Bible contains some complex subject matter. John MacArthur took 45 years and 2,273 sermons to explain every verse in the New Testament. Obviously, anyone who spends less effort studying or listening to those sermons, cannot be taken seriously to claiming understanding of the Bible.
Christian theologians are at fault for not spending enough diligence to interpret the Bible, resulting in many variants of Christianity, some at odds with one another, even over fundamentals. However, this does not dilute the starting hypothesis that the Bible is true. Imagine the situation where Newton's Principia Mathematica is available, but not everyone is able to yet understand and verify every detail inside.
The contents of the Bible are complex. Yet, most think they know better. When an airplane crashes or a building collapses, no one, no one, ever, suspects Newton made a mistake. Never!
But, whenever someone, many Christians included, has difficulty seeing logical compatibility between a Bible verse and reality, his first reaction is that the Bible could be wrong. A wannabe expert cites 1 Kings 18:21-40 where Yahweh and Baal were authenticated or rejected by fire and comes to the fast conclusion that it contradicts the claim that God cannot be tested. (I will not attempt to correct him here as the explanation cannot be done with one catchy soundbite.)
I have not verified it myself, but I have not heard of anyone coming up with a counter point that can dismiss the hypothesis that the Bible is true. Not even the evolutionary biology theory that says life began with a single cell billions years ago, because the latter is simply the current favorite but unproven theory.
When a teacher writes something on the board, 50% of the class learns something new, 25% do not have a clue about what is written, and 25% are impatient why the teacher is stating the obvious that they already knew years ago. It is therefore not surprising that when the Bible is presented to people, there will be a range of comprehension. Again, this reality does not detract from the hypothesis that the Bible is true.
To understand the Principia Mathematica requires prior acceptance of the hypothesis that F = ma. To understand the Bible first requires acceptance of the hypothesis that the Bible is true. There is nothing unscientific about this approach. Disproving the hypothesis is a different exercise.
The discussion thus far has avoided going into the details of what the Bible says. If we are at odds over agreement of what is a fact, and how the truth can be denied, it is not the right time or occasion to discuss the Bible yet.
» Next…
Comments
Post a Comment