Is the Bible Unscientific? w/Jason Lisle

Introduction and the Question of Whether the Bible Is Unscientific

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Ayala, and today, my guest with me is apologist, Ph .D., astrophysicist and author, Dr. Jason Lyle. He has written quite a bunch of books.

I can't number all of them, but some of them include Why Genesis Matters, Discerning Truth, Exposing Errors in Evolutionary Arguments, An Introduction to Logic. This is actually a book. I teach logic, 8th grade logic and debate, and this is actually one of the main textbooks that I use.

I highly recommend Dr. Lyle's Introduction to Logic. He's written a book, Keeping the Faith in the Age of Reason, which talks about Bible contradictions and how to resolve them, things like that. I believe his most popular book, I might be mistaken on this, but his most popular book is The Ultimate Proof of Creation.

This is an excellent resource for those who are interested in the topics of the creation debates and, more specifically, presuppositional apologetics. I'm happy that Dr. Lyle has joined me this evening to discuss the question, is the Bible unscientific?

Before we jump into that, though, I want to make folks aware that I've started a second YouTube channel. We have this channel here, and then there is another one called Revealed Apologetics Plus, and it focuses on short-form content.

It basically provides answers to general theology questions, apologetics, Bible questions. Right now, there are only two videos posted as of now, but I would love it if folks showed their support and subscribed to that channel as well.

I really want it to be a resource that we can kind of point people to a channel with quick apologetic theology and Bible questions. I'm kind of just taking popular questions and answering kind of off the cuff.

Hopefully that will be a blessing to those who listen in. Lastly, my new course on Presuppositional Apologetics Applied, Presupp Applied, is available for sign-up if folks want to support what I do here.

Signing up for my courses, which are available on the website, is one of the ways that they can do that. It is super useful and beneficial to what I do here. All right, well, without further ado, why don't I give you the floor, Dr. Lyle, and just say hi to everyone, maybe update folks on what you've been up to, and then we'll jump right into the discussion today.

Science, Worldview, and the Christian Foundation for Rationality

Okay, well, I'm Jason Lyle. I'm the founder of the Biblical Science Institute. What we do is we show people, basically, it's pertinent to this topic. We show people that science confirms the Bible, and I kind of specialize in biblical creation, the defense of the literal history in Genesis, and how science confirms that, because that's the most attacked and ridiculed book of the Bible, because people have been taught that millions of years of evolution is what science indicates.

What I do is I refute that. I show people how science confirms what the Bible teaches, and that science even provides the philosophical framework necessary for science to function properly. So I go around speaking and writing on these topics.

We have the website, biblicalscienceinstitute .com, a lot of free resources on that website, and our web store is there as well, videos and all kinds of stuff. And then occasionally I get to do a little bit of research, too, and that's always fun, and I've been researching James Webb Space Telescope images and fascinating stuff coming.

Out of there.

So that's all in the very near future.

Excellent.

Well, for folks who follow your work, they know that you travel and you speak. How might someone get in contact with you if they're interested in having you speak at their event or church?

Yeah, just go to our website, biblicalscienceinstitute .com. There's a contact us form, and you can send in an email that way, and we'll get in contact with you then. Let us know how to touch base if you're interested in hosting me for a speaking engagement or part of a conference, whatever.

Excellent. Very good.

Well, now that everyone is acquainted with you, and they were already acquainted with you, I always get messages, when are you going to have Dr. Lai? I was like, come on, man, I don't know. I'm sure he's super busy.

So I'm very happy that you always make the time to hop on when I ask, and so I really appreciate that.

All right.

Well, let's jump right in. The question for tonight is, is the Bible unscientific? Now I want to ask you a question relating to worldview and science, and so here's my first question for you, and perhaps you could unpack it for us.

How does one's worldview influence their interpretation of scientific evidence and scriptural texts? So this is a super fundamental question in these sorts of topics. So how would you answer that for us?

Your worldview, basically your most fundamental beliefs, the network of all those beliefs determines what you make of the evidence, which is why creationists and evolutionists can be staring at exactly the same fossil and draw very different conclusions about what it means.

They have a different worldview. They have a different way of thinking about how the world came to be, how old it is, how it came to be the way it is today, whether or not there was a global flood, and that will affect the conclusions they draw from the evidence, and that's in the field of paleontology, but in my own field of astronomy and astrophysics, the interpretations that my secular colleagues draw, especially when it comes to making estimates or guesses about past events, which science isn't really equipped to do well because it involves, science requires repeatability.

Past events can't be repeated, but nonetheless, we tend to draw very different conclusions because we have a different way of thinking about things, a different worldview. Worldview, you can think of like mental glasses, you put on your glasses, it will affect how you see things.

I think of the biblical worldview like corrective lenses, because the Bible gives us the correct view of history. You snap them on, everything looks sharp and in focus, the world, you see the world as it is, and then I think, I like to think of evolution like red glasses, you'll put red glasses on, you'll say the world is a way because those are the glasses that you're wearing, and your worldview is very much like that.

It's your way of thinking about things, and it will have a very profound and strong influence on the interpretations that you draw.

Yeah, that's excellent, and what I appreciate about that, Dr. Lyle, is your answer is relevant to more than just science, so that's relevant to literally every field that we can cover, whether it's philosophy or history or anything along those lines.

Now what happens when someone says, well, wait a minute, Dr. Lyle, that's your presuppositional dodging of what's obvious, right? Clearly the evidence for maybe evolution or billions of years, it's so clear, presuppositional apologetics and worldview discussion has just been constructed to avoid what is obvious, and if I had a dollar for each time I heard this, I probably would have better camera quality because I'd have a lot more money, so how would you address that, Dr. Lyle?

Whenever I hear somebody say that, I know I'm dealing with someone who has not thought through their own worldview, their own presuppositions, their own basic beliefs about reality. They haven't given it a clue, and frankly, most people haven't, and so most people have not thought about

Most people take certain things for granted, that their senses are basically reliable, that their memory's reliable, that there are laws of logic, and they say, well, you believe in those things. Yes, I do, but I have a reason for them.

On a Christian worldview, I can make sense of those things. My senses were designed by a creator, so of course they're going to have truth value and laws of logic reflect God's thinking and so on, so I have a reason for my ability to.

Reason.

My secular colleagues can reason, but they don't have a reason for their ability to reason in the secular worldview. Most people just don't think deeply about these things. They take for granted things that only make sense on a Christian worldview.

They're stealing Christian presuppositions, building their house on them, and then claiming they want nothing to do with Christianity, and the way I like to think of it, your presuppositions, your worldview, your worldview is just all your presuppositions put together.

Your presuppositions are a lot like kidneys. You can't live without them. They are constantly, constantly processing and working, and yet most people are not aware of their own until something goes wrong with one of them.

If you ever had a kidney stone, you are suddenly very aware of these things that you've been taking for granted for a long time, and so what I like to do as an apologist is give people the intellectual equivalent of a kidney stone.

I like to give them some information that their worldview can't process, and suddenly they're aware that their worldview has a deficiency in it. That's the way I approach apologetics.

So now when we say that the unbeliever cannot provide a foundation for science and the presuppositions, but we say, but the Christian worldview can, a lot of people think that we're just making an assertion.

Can you kind of unpack for us. How is it the case that the Christian worldview does in those preconditions that make science meaningful or history meaningful or even rationality itself?

Sure.

I'd love to, and there's different aspects to this. One that maybe we'll get into later is induction. I love talking about that one, but it takes a little while to unpack it. Just to start out, though, the fact that I have basically reliable senses, that's essential for science.

I mean, if I'm looking through the telescope and I'm drawing conclusions about what I'm seeing, I've already presupposed that my eyes are reliably giving me information from the universe, and in a Christian worldview, that makes sense because my eyes were designed by God.

The seeing eye, the hearing ear, the Lord God made them both, the Bible says. If my senses, however, are simply a result of evolution, there's no guarantee that they're.

Truthful.

Somebody says, well, they have survival value. I'll grant that, but so does photosynthesis. What if I think my eyes are perceiving and my ears are hearing? What if that's really just a byproduct of photosynthesis?

It would have survival value, but it wouldn't be truthful, would it? The secularist takes for granted that his senses are basically reliable as if they were designed by an intelligent mind and not simply the result of chance or the rationality of the mind, the fact that my mind can consider various options and then choose the best rationally.

That makes no sense if our mind is just our brain and our brain is just chemistry because chemistry has no choice. There's no choosing best options. Chemistry just does what chemistry does. I fizz one way, you fizz another way if we're just chemistry.

There's no rationality there. Or laws of logic by which we reason. Laws of logic are these abstract principles of correct reason, but where do those come.

From?

How do you account for them if you're an atheist? How do they even work? We just find they work. Well, that's not much of an answer. How do you know they work? I mean, you've analyzed them logically, but isn't that circular and so on?

In the Christian worldview, I could say no laws of logic reflect God's thinking and his thinking, unlike ours, his thinking determines what's true. And so if we're going to think properly, we need to think in a way that's consistent with God's character.

And that's what laws of logic are. And so just as a 30 ,000 foot overview, science makes sense in the Christian worldview. For that matter, science presupposes that there are patterns in nature to be discovered.

And that makes sense if there's a God who has created the universe and upholds it in a consistent way such that there are patterns to be discovered and were made in the image of that God. And so we have the capacity to think in a limited way like he does.

And so we can discover these patterns with the senses he's given us and the mind he's given us. None of that makes sense in a chance universe. Why would there even be patterns in a chance universe? Now, secularists take it for granted.

Oh, I don't know. But there are. But how do you know that apart from assuming the reliability of your senses and things like that? So all these things that we take for granted are things that we do know to be true because we know in our heart of hearts, the biblical God and God has revealed those things to us most propositionally in his word.

And so that's how we know that science is possible. It stems from a Christian worldview. And just as a matter of history, it's not surprising that most of the founding fathers of the various disciplines of science were Christians.

They expected to find patterns in nature because they believed it was upheld by the mind.

Of God. Sure.

Excellent. So when we say, how do you know that's not just a gotcha question or a question that we're trying to be nitpicky over something that this is obviously we all know that the senses are reliable.

We all have to use them. But we're not asking that just to be nitpicky. We're asking that to say, hey, if you don't want God make sense out of these things in a worldview without him. So that's why we're asking them.

We're really asking you to give an account for your worldview, the foundations of your worldview. I like that. All right. Well, let's jump into some other questions here with respect to presuppositional apologetics and the specific question that we're addressing here.

Why the Bible Is Not a Science Textbook but Still Speaks Truthfully About Nature

So from a presuppositional standpoint, why is it even important to address the topic of whether the Bible is scientific? I mean, does it does it matter as presuppositional as Christians that we even address this question?

Is the Bible even meant to be scientific in any way? How would you address that question?

Well, yeah, we'd probably have to define our terms as well. When I when I say the Bible, it's when I say the claim that the Bible is unscientific is false. I mean that when the Bible touches on scientific issues, it touches on them truthfully.

It gives us accurate information. And secondarily and more importantly, the Bible gives us the foundation for doing science, trusting in scientific procedures along the lines of what we're just talking about.

And so that's what I mean by that. I'm not claiming that the Bible is a science textbook. That's not its primary purpose. Its primary purpose is primarily a history book, although it contains other types of literature, poetic and so on.

But it's primarily a history book giving us the important information we need to understand our relationship with God, how that relationship got broken and what can be done to remedy that situation. But in the context of God giving us all this historical information, he does mention some things about stars and about the shape of the earth and about water cycles and things like that, things that are matters of science.

And they turn out to be right. And I think that's I think that is important because science is a very, very powerful tool. It's a tool that I would argue the Lord's given us and works because the Bible is true.

But people rightly have some respect for the scientific method. I think they should. And so when this narrative comes around and it's just a narrative, it's the secular narrative that the Bible is unscientific.

People see attention there because they think, well, here's this method that we've relied upon that gives us computers and makes technology possible and puts people on the moon. Isn't that a wonderful tool?

Yes, it is. And when people think that's incompatible with the Bible, it leads them to reject scripture for, I think, false reasons. And so that's why it's important for us to know, no, no, the Bible is accurate when it touches on science and, in fact, gives us the foundation for doing science.

That's why it matters.

Sure.

So you're saying that the Bible is not a science textbook, but anytime it speaks about something reflecting the natural world, it's accurate.

Exactly.

And it would have to be by virtue of the fact it's God's word.

That's right.

OK, very good.

So how should Christians respond then to the claim that the Bible is not a reliable source of scientific information? So now you have the question of or not the question, but kind of the accusation that knowing what the Bible says about nature, it's inaccurate.

So it's not a reliable source for scientific information. How would we interact with a question like that?

I'm tempted to ask, by what standard? How do you know that? Not to be coy, but I mean, that's really the question, isn't it? Well, we know that because we rely upon sensory information. That's a biblical principle.

Well, because logic. Well, that's a biblical principle. Well, because the scientific method relies on induction. That's a biblical principle. So if the Bible were unreliable, you shouldn't trust in the methods of science.

That's my point. That being the case, I can give specific counterexamples. And that's sometimes what I do. I mean, it's all fine to stay up in the realm of the theory and clouds and philosophy. But I do like to give people some practical examples of things that they know are scientifically true that the Bible does touch on the spherical nature of the earth, which is mentioned in Job 2610, where God inscribes a circle on the boundary of the water or at the boundary between light and darkness on the face of the waters.

And that's describing that's biblical language for what astronomers call the terminator, where light stops or terminates. And that's where evening and morning occur. And it's always a circle because the earth is spherical.

It's a very clear reference to the spherical nature of the earth, written at a time when most people didn't believe that. Most people at Job, we think, is around 2000 BC. Most people thought the earth was flat at that time.

It wasn't till around 500 BC where you have the Greeks finally realizing, no, the earth really is spherical, just like the Bible said 1500 years in advance. And so that's just a little little taste of that or or the stretching out of the heavens.

The fact that the universe is being expanded or stretched out is mentioned in Isaiah 4022. God stretches out the heavens like a curtain, spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. That wasn't discovered by scientific means until the 1920s.

And so, you know, Isaiah is around 700 BC. So God got it right long before secular scientists caught up with that and realized actually the universe is expanding throughout the Middle Ages. Most astronomers believe the universe was static and unchanging.

I mean, they knew the planets moved, but they thought the stars, those were set and they don't they certainly can't expand or anything like that. And then in the 1920s, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered by measuring redshifts of galaxies, they're all kind of moving away from each other as if the universe is being expanded.

And you need modern technology to discover that by scientific means. You need telescopes and spectroscopes to make that discovery. Telescopes were invented in 1608. Spectroscopes were invented, you know, a century later.

But yet God's mentioning this 700 BC. That's pretty neat. And in several other places in scripture that's mentioned as well. So those are two specific examples of places where the Bible makes a claim that could be considered a scientific claim.

It's dealing with the shape of the earth, the nature of the universe being either static or expanding. And the Bible gets it exactly right. And today we'd have to agree the Bible got it right, even though at the time those statements were made, most people would disagree with them.

There's a lesson to be learned there.

Yeah.

And when people when you give these responses like, oh, well, OK, the Bible was a little.

Accurate.

It doesn't it doesn't matter what you say. The issue that the unbeliever has is not typically the fact that they don't know the answers to those questions.

Right.

You could answer their questions and you're going to find quickly that your answers aren't good enough because it's a deeper issue that's involved. It's a hard issue.

Right.

Exactly.

New Scientific Discoveries and How Christians Should Respond

Yeah, exactly. I want to give a shout out real quick to Ginger Cat Cookie. I love Internet names. That's Ginger Cat Cookie.

I love it.

Thank you so much for your fifty dollars super chat or super sticker. I really appreciate the support there. Thank you so much. Yes, folks are asking if you'd be willing to take questions towards the back end of the live stream.

That's completely up to you. There are already questions coming in.

All right, cool.

But since I'm the host, I get my questions answered first. So let's jump right into our next question for Dr. Lyle. And this question is pertaining to new discoveries in science. What does a Christian do when there are new discoveries?

And I'm going to say seems that seem to be in conflict with what the Bible is teaching, because that's, you know, I remember a while back when the God particle was discovered, you know, with the Higgs.

Is it boson. Higgs boson?

Higgs boson.

That's right. And everyone, this this article was was, you know, circulating people like, oh, my goodness, they discovered, you know, a particle that explains why, you know, things have mass in the universe or blah, blah, blah.

I'm not a scientist. I don't even know if that's accurate. But how do we navigate that new discoveries? It seems to conflict with the Bible. Where do we go from there?

I'm going to give a counterintuitive answer. If you're a presuppositionalist, you understand this. You celebrate because that discovery would not have been possible unless the Bible's true. OK, so unless the Bible's true, you couldn't have made any discovery, let alone ones that seem to contradict the Bible.

So so any discovery is a good discovery. That being the case, I've never seen one that actually refutes anything the Bible says in terms of specific information. There are things that we might falsely, you know, because we build on Scripture and then we make some guesses and, you know, and our guesses might be wrong and we might have to correct those.

But in terms of things that directly contradict Scripture, what is there in science that directly contradicts Scripture? I mean, the Bible says that animals and plants, God made them according to their kinds.

And so when they reproduce, they reproduce the same kind. Go plant strawberries and see what grows. You'll get strawberries every time. I mean, there's there's nothing in terms of the observational world that contradicts anything the Bible teaches.

Mutations can happen, though. Have you ever poured a bowl of cereal and you have that you have that mutated cornflake?

Yeah, but there's still strawberries. And that's that's that's that's the key. And the Bible talks about, you know, mistakes can happen because there's a curse and so.

On.

We'd expect that, too. So whenever there's a discovery that somebody says, well, you know, this evidence proves millions of years. No, it doesn't. Take a look at the data. See what see what assumptions they're making.

The observations never contradict Scripture, but sometimes the assumptions that are made and the conclusions that are drawn do. But that's a result of bad assumptions. It's not a result of faulty data.

I agree with all the data that exists. Sometimes people say, you're ignoring data.

No, I'm not.

I agree with all. I have the same data you have. We just interpret it differently because we have different presuppositions. But there's nothing in science that would contradict anything that the Bible actually states or affirms.

So when a scientist says new discovery tells us fill in the blank and whatever they fill in the blank, we have to understand that what they're filling the blank with is going to be theory laden and with presuppositions that dictate the thing they fill the blank in with.

So we need to calibrate that with the biblical presuppositions.

Yeah.

And a lot of times, you know, most times layman, they just get the journalist's summary of what the scientist discovered. I like to go back and I know it's tedious for most people. I like to go back and look at the actual peer reviewed literature, see what they actually what they saw and then how they drew the conclusions that they draw.

And you'll always see where the assumptions are. Sometimes the assumptions are fine and the conclusion is pretty good. And it turns out it doesn't really contradict Scripture anyway. But I have to tell you, Eli, because sometimes I'll get people.

They're frantic. They're worried Christians and they say, Dr. Lyle, there was this new discovery and they're worried about it when they're worried about it. I know I'm dealing with an evidentialist. I know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't understand the nature of worldviews, presuppositions and so on, because if you're a presuppositionalist, you would have realized, hey, there was a new discovery made by science.

Science is only possible in the Christian worldview. Therefore, this is yet another confirmation of the Christian worldview. Whatever the discovery is, it's a confirmation of the Christian worldview, because it would not have been possible unless the Bible is true.

Great point. Now, my next question here, and I think this is something that a lot of people struggle with, Dr. Lyle, and it is the the issue of when does our discovery in the natural world impact how we understand certain texts of the scriptures?

In other words, the Bible is our ultimate authority. But is there ever a time when it is appropriate in which a natural discovery forces us to go back and reconsider whether we're understanding a biblical text correctly?

This is something that many people struggle with. How do you speak to that?

Yeah, that's a very good question, a challenging one. My short answer is I do believe in the ministerial role of science in scriptural interpretation, but not a magisterial role. In other words, science is the servant of the scriptures.

It's not the master of the scriptures. And so if we can read a text, and most of the texts of scripture really are pretty clear, and it's clear what they say. And there's some scientific discovery that seems to challenge that.

I'm going to look at that scientific discovery and say what assumptions were made, because one of those is wrong. OK, I'm not going to use that to reinterpret the clear text of scripture. But there are some texts of scripture or some things that the scripture doesn't say at all that we kind of have filled in the blanks.

And then some new discovery challenges are filling in of the blanks. And we need to say, wait a minute, maybe I didn't fill in those blanks properly. That's a ministerial role of science. And I think that's appropriate.

Or there are some places where, because of the Hebrew-Greek text, there's a text that is genuinely ambiguous. It could mean this or this. And from context, you really can't tell. I mean, there's not an infinite in that range of meanings, but there's two legitimate meanings.

And you'd say, well, from science, this one, science seems to close this one off. And so this is the better interpretation. I think that's legitimate. I think there is a ministerial role for science and biblical interpretation.

But science should never be used to override the meaning of the text, because science is not, science doesn't give us certainty. It's not designed to. It gives us, it's probabilistic in its nature. It's inductive.

And so what science does is it tells us how God normally upholds his creation. That's what science is about. It's discovering the normal, systematic way that God normally accomplishes his will in creation.

But God's not required to do things that way. And so, for example, I think it's pretty good science that dead people stay dead. Science has confirmed that thousands of times. But you know what? I still believe in the resurrection of Christ because God is not required to normally do.

It that way.

And I know at the end of time, there's at the end of time, there's gonna be another resurrection of all people when God undoes death. So the fact that science is established, and I think quite well, that normally dead people stay dead does not eliminate the fact that God can make an exception to that.

That's right.

All right.

Very good.

That's awesome.

I love it.

Joshua, the Sun Standing Still, and the Limits of Biblical Cosmology

Just a quick shout out here, a couple of super chats that if you guys recognize that last name, that is my father, George Ayala. Thank you so much for the $20 super sticker. I really appreciate it. And I love you.

Appreciate the support. And then, of course, the Al, I think it's the Alcoon project, $10 super sticker. He says, or she says, I don't want to be presumptuous. Dr. Lyle, thank you for your book, Introduction to Logic.

It's been super for apologetics. And I highly recommend folks use it if you guys are just tuning in. I use Dr. Lyle's Introduction to Logic when I teach my logic class, my eighth grade logic.

Class.

And so I highly recommend that book.

All right.

Well, thank you for that. I've been giving you softball questions. Now we need to kind of move into some specific biblical examples that are often brought up. And I have not shared these questions with you, but I would imagine you're probably anticipating a few possible chapters, portions of scripture that are brought up in these sorts of discussions.

Joshua and the son standing still.

Okay.

How should we understand the account of Joshua commanding the son to stand still? Does this imply a geocentric view of the universe? Now, don't wiggle out Dr. Lyle by saying, yeah, that's a great question.

People, and then don't answer the question. You need to answer the question specifically, because if you don't, I'm going to get, I'm going to get bombarded in the comments. Dr. Lyle, you know, dodge the, dodge the question.

So go, go for it.

Yeah.

First, I was going to say, gee, I've never heard that one before, but no, it does not imply a geocentric universe. Joshua gives the reference frame. All motion is relative. All motion is relative because you think about it.

Motion is a change in position over a change in time. That's how it's defined. But a change in position, you have to say position relative to what? If I, if I asked you, where, where are you? And you said, I'm 30 miles North.

The natural question is of what, right? You have to have a reference frame. And the Bible normally, and as we do in everyday conversation, the Bible uses the earth as a convenient reference frame. And we always do.

And Joshua specifies at least in, cause there's two there's in that same chapter, there's two places where he mentions the sun setting still, but one of them says in the midst of the sky. So he's giving his reference frame.

The reference frame is earth sky, and he gives some features on the earth that it's apparently over. So he's giving his reference frame as the earth, what that passage means. And all you can pull from it biblically is that from Joshua's point of view, the sun and moon halted their normal motion in earth sky.

That's all you can conclude from the passage. Now, in terms of how things are actually moving in space and what does it even mean to talk about actual motion, if motion's relative. But in terms of Newtonian motion, for example, Newton has certain categories of things that are moving, you know, and rotation doesn't count because that introduces fictional forces, centrifugal force and Coriolis forces.

But in any case, in terms of Newtonian motion, the earth orbits the sun and it's rotating. And so I could say scientifically, probably what would happen if I were watching this event from an overhead view of the solar system, probably what happened is the earth's rotation just stopped and its orbit around the sun as well and the moon.

They all just stopped. And so that would produce the effect that Joshua describes in chapter 10. But Joshua doesn't say that the sun and moons move around the earth in a Newtonian sense and they stopped in a Newtonian sense.

He doesn't say that. He just says they stopped in the midst of the sky. And so he's giving his perspective. And therefore, that's all we can conclude biblically. And then this is another example of ministerial world science.

We know that the planets orbit the sun. We have good evidence for that. And so we can now speculate on what it might have looked like from above, as I just did.

Yeah.

Now, it's funny when you said that he didn't say the sun stopped and then he had like a Newtonian kind of understanding. Someone could easily say, well, he wouldn't speak in that way.

Exactly.

And so because he didn't speak that way and because he didn't give all this great detail, we can only draw certain things from the text. We can't import a bunch of other things and create a contradiction or, you know, misinformation based upon importing something in the text that's not there.

Exactly.

It's a great point there. Now, again, you've heard this and I'm sure people have had you on their channel to talk about this, but what about those passages in scripture that seem to be describing a flat earth?

How should these be understood in their historical and literary context so that we can show, because we obviously believe the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat. There's actually a woman, I think, a parent of a student that my wife had who was a flat.