![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.biblecity.org\/assets\/1285\/bible460.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Before we can discuss the Bible, work on such matters as Hebrew linguistics are crucial. Most people who discuss the Bible nowadays on the internet and in churches are discussing English translations, which depend on the work of scholars such as linguists. Young-earth creationist groups like Answers in Genesis reject such scholarly work, and thus the literal meaning of the Bible in the original languages, when it suits them to do so. A classic example is the reference to the dome in Genesis 1:6-7, which they insist is not a dome even though linguists consistently disagree with them. We are not free to simply change the meaning of words in the Bible the way Answers in Genesis does. We must start with the words, and if the words of the Bible do not match the world as we observe it, then we must accept that. We may differ about what to do under such circumstances. But twisting the Bible to mean what we want it to, and then saying we are believing the Bible and taking it literally, should not be accepted as an option by any Christian. That is why I am so dismayed that Ken Ham remains so popular in a wide variety of sectarian fringe groups within Christianity.<\/p>\n
So don\u2019t believe those who say that they are \u201clooking at modern science through the lens of the Bible\u201d while their opponents are \u201clooking at the Bible through the lens of science.\u201d Unless you accept the work done by scholars to clarify the meaning of Hebrew words both lexically and in terms of their meaning in the context of their setting in a particular historical and cultural context, then you aren\u2019t looking at the Bible at all, in any meaningful sense. It is your own cultural, linguistic, and theological standpoint that you are looking through, and chances are it will be so opaque that you will rarely be able to actually glimpse the Bible through it.<\/p>\n