Hey – the conversation about the Big Bang, etc. in the comments of my last post was very interesting! Lots of opinions, lots of very bright people chiming in. My favorite thing about the conversation is that it was entirely civil. No one lambasting anyone else for having a different opinion, which seems to me to have become a somewhat rare thing in our culture today.
Several people made the excellent point that many statements made by scientists as “facts” are actually conjecture, based on underlying facts. Theories stacked upon theories that somehow overnight get stamped as “facts” and then plastered all over the mainstream media. As we believers look at the world of science, it is incredibly important for us to be able to separate the real facts of science from all the layers of interpretation stacked above. (For example, “Here’s a new fossil that looks kind of like this animal and kind of like this animal. Aha! A missing link!” Perhaps, or possibly just one animal that looks a lot like two other animals.)
What’s equally important for us to remember, as believers, is that throughout history we have often done the same thing with the Bible. For example, once upon a time when people were debating whether the earth was round or flat, one of the arguments for a flat earth was that “the Bible says the earth is flat!” Wait – what? Where does the Bible say that? And those folks would pull out Revelation 7:1, which says, and I quote, “I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth….” “See?” they’d say. “The earth has four corners! Therefore it CAN’T be round!”
Of course now we recognize that the Bible sometimes uses figures of speech and poetic language, and no one today maintains that the Bible says the earth is flat. We need to be clear about the difference between what the Bible SAYS, and what we believe it MEANS. The Bible is always correct in what it says. We – as humans – are sometimes incorrect in our interpretations of what it means. Same thing with science. Let’s agree on the facts, and agree that it’s okay sometimes to disagree on how we interpret those facts.
In completely unrelated news – I saw the film “Waking Sleeping Beauty” the other day – the new documentary about the rebirth of Disney animation between 1984 and 1994. Very interesting and only playing in a few cities – NYC, LA, San Francisco and Chicago, I believe. If you’re a Disney animation fan and you get a chance, check it out.
May I add another example, one of apparent contradiction between the Bible and the Bible?
Psalm 88:10 says (NIV): “Do you show your wonders to the dead?” The literal meaning of “dead” (met or in the plural as here metim) in the Hebrew is simply those that stopped living. The same Hebrew word is used for righteous people who die, such as Ehud (Judges 4:1).
Which means that one of four options has to be true:
1. There is no afterlife. If I remember correctly, you can’t be a Christian and believe that because the New Testament says there is.
2. The Psalm is reporting a person’s thoughts, which can be wrong. This would be like Ecclesiastes 1:2, for example. Despites what it says, life on Earth is not meaningless. The problem is that the Psalm doesn’t say it is reporting a person’s thoughts.
3. The real meaning of scripture is not be the same as the literal meaning, at least in certain parts of scripture.
4. Ori is silly and didn’t notice the obvious solution, which is ….
For very biblically sound, real scientific research and explanation check out icr.org
I believe we must be very careful about what we agree to accept regarding evolution because the slippery slide down to compromising the entire word of God can start with not literally believing the first few chapters in the Bible. Evolution is completely incompatible with biblical Christianity.
icr.org
This is odd, cause as a 12-year-old I noticed the difference in Disney films. You could almost classify the “feel” of the films.
Aristocats, Cinderalla, Rescuers, 101 Dalmations, Fox and the Hound
vs.
Rescuers Down Under, Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame
At the time I even tried explaining it, saying that it must be the music style that was different. That aside, I’d like to catch the documentary when it comes to DVD.
For a complete list of Disney films check the Wikipedia page.
reasons.orgOri,
It seems to me that two things need to be considered in reading this passage.
First: context or intent, and second: point reference or perspective of the writer.
On the first point, if you read the whole Psalm, it seems clear that this is what I would call a “wailing and gnashing teeth” Psalm. The writer is feeling awful, and writing in a raw, but metaphorical way. Similar to someone recounting the last time they had the stomach flu, and saying they just wanted to die. Did they really want to die? If someone had shown up with a gun to “help them”, would it have been welcomed? Most likely not.
If you take this Psalm literally, there could be all sorts of places to pick apart. Was the writer really put in the lowest pit (v. 6)? Wouldn’t that be somewhere in the Marianas Trench in the Atlantic Ocean? We get the point, without having a crisis of believability because of the metaphorical language.
On the second point, perspective or point of reference, I have to credit the apologist and scientist Hugh Ross, – http://www.reasons.org – for this valuable tool in interpreting scripture. An essential tool in interpreting scripture is to know the point of reference of the writer. For example, if I write that the sun goes down in the west, we know it really isn’t moving, and you don’t think me a dolt for saying this. We understand that from the perspective of someone on earth, the sun seems to move. Point of reference in crucial.
Now, in Psalm 88, from the perspective of a living person on earth, “showing your wonders to the dead” is futile. They’re dead! They can’t respond! They can’t “rise up and praise you”. A quick paraphrase of the Psalm might be: I feel awful, like I’m gonna die, I feel like dying, and you’re treating me like I’m dead. Where are your glories? Where are your blessings? Everything stinks! (Steve extreme paraphrase version)
It seems clear to me that this Psalm was not meant to be taken as a series of propositional truths, but rather a recounting of raw emotions meant to help worshippers to open up and identify with this honest portrayal of one aspect of the human condition.
While I tend to the more scientific interpretations of scripture, I always enjoyed my friend Don’s point of view, that as we learn more, more and more will be resolved.
His favorite example was the Big Bang. At that point, scientists believed in the steady state theory, and belittled people who then thought the universe had a beginning. Along came Hubble, and then the paradigm shifted. Of course science shows that the universe has a beginning!
Unfortunately, these episodes rarely lead to scientific humility. Nor do our gaping holes, like what caused the Big Bang.
I like to think about God being a good teacher, too. (The best, in fact.) A good teacher wouldn’t bog down a kindergartner with lots of details about the Yang-Mills equation and the Higg’s field decoupling, but rather explain that the world is created and there is a Loving person responsible.
Keep being a peacemaker, Phil!
No Phil! It’s flat! It’s flat!
I terribly want to see “Waking Sleeping Beauty.” The Disney Renaissance is so interesting.
Nice post– I like your theory there on evolved animals looking the same, but when you tell it to a scientist a lot of them get angry (Run it by Dr. Schniff for us.)
But there are parts of evolution that ARE proven. Such as animals getting thicker skin or a darker color to help them cope with heat or humans getting taller over time.
But that’s just God’s way of helping out creatures of His Earth
You should’ve mentioned how Job, Isaiah, and Psalms suggest a spherical earth.
It’s very important to read carefully, but not read into it either. People used to think the Bible was being symbolic about snakes eating dust (Christians too), until they discovered that snakes really do consume dust. Not only that, but they discovered that snakes are supposed to have legs, but don’t. Many Christians didn’t believe Israel would ever become a nation again, even though the Bible said it would. Minimalist archaeologists believed Jericho didn’t exist, until the unearthed it. Now we read about Jericho in my art history books. There are many other examples like this.
Yeah, thats the thing I love about Christian discussions. Total respect. Which is a testament to how we act with strangers.
Nice point though Phil, about changing the Bible’s meaning. I love looking at the original meaning of certain words, that is real, just a different translation, and sometimes this gives us insight into the real meaning.
I’ve caught wind of Waking Sleeping Beauty, but I just thought it was a straight to DVD sequel of Sleeping Beauty, so I dismissed it. Guess I’ll have to do some digging.
I have nothing brilliant to say. I’m just in awe that the conversation can transition so smoothly between the Big Bang Theory, Cinderella, the shape of the planet, and the renaissance of Disney animation. Seamless conversation. Amazing.
i have nothing brilliant to say either…so I’m probably not gonna comment here anymore and not embarrass myself.
Professor Steve, thank you. Good point that we can use context to see which parts of the Bible to take literally.
Phil, I think you’re doing the right thing. It’s a simple fact that, whether the ICR & AiG folks like/understand it or not, many Christians disagree on this subject while still upholding Jesus and the Bible. And it’s honest disagreement, too, not the true believers vs. the apostates. With AiG, however, I really worry that it becomes more about the “party line” than the Bible itself, and I don’t want that message going to my kids.
Just a note to tell you that I love watching the episodes with my kids. Asking and answering the big questions with our kids is crucial, so agree or disagree with your Big Bang comment, thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk with my kiddos about it. You’re doing great work!
I just want to say that this weekend reminded me of when we first met a couple of red and green fellows who danced their way into our hearts. My husband and I did not even have children back then but before our first child was born we had every episode waiting on her. This weekend while in a Christian store we came across What’s in the Bible? This time the audience of 6 was old enough to decide for themselves if they enjoyed what they say, before it was forced down their throat, and they loved it. My oldest who is 10 wanted to know when we could get Episode 2! I am so glad to see you back! By the way we will be getting the next episode for Friday night movie night. Thank you for giving families good clean fun entertainment that teaches them about the Almighty! Thanks Phil!
I don’t think anyone is arguing that it means that Christians who don’t believe in a literal Genesis don’t uphold Jesus and the Bible. I agree that it’s honest disagreement. But an honest opinion may still be a wrong opinion. You really have to read into Genesis to make it anything other that 6 days. But the truth always speaks loudly and clearly. Also, if you believe that Genesis was written by Moses, then it has to be literal. In Numbers The LORD says that He does not reveal things to Moses the way he does to His other prophets. He says he speaks to Moses, clearly and without riddles. If Genesis had been written by say, Daniel, you could say that it’s symbolic. But not Moses. It’s not my personal opinion. God said it first. If ICR and AiG come across as being more about the “party line” it’s simply because that’s what these organizations are about. It’s their theme. It’s like watching ABC World News and complaining that their talking too much about politics.
Phil et al,
As previously noted, I’m a fan of WITB. That being said, I
Fair to note: A large number of scientists in the secular community no longer hold to the “Big Bang” theory…mostly because it is the top card on a house of theoretical cards stacked on other theoretical cards (“dark matter” comes to mind- although as a certain online Ninja put it, the most dangerous substance in the universe is actually “doesn’t matter”- stuff people talk about which really DOESN’T MATTER…like “who’s taking Chris Tomlin to the Sadie Hawkins dance”…). The massive number of holes in the Big Bang theory all result in one conclusion: It doesn’t hold water. Evolution (defined as “change over millions of years”) doesn’t work. Every single example to which evolutionists pointed as “proof”- Lucy, Peking Man, archeopteryx, Java Man, etc.- have all long been exposed (by the secular scientific community, I might add) as frauds.
Adaptation of individual species has been proven- and can be scientifically reproduced. Similarly, “natural selection” works, but only within the context of geographical survivability. In an area with white trees, brown moths tend to get eaten. Same in an area with brown trees- being a white moth is not a long-term career, except possibly as bird-cage liner. With the similarities in climate between the Arctic and Antarctica, one wonders why there are no penguins in the North Pole region. The simple and practical answer: If you’re a fat, slow-moving, black-feathered bird in the Arctic, you’re polar bear food. If there ever were penguins in the Arctic region, they’d be gone faster than double chocolate ice cream at an “No Prom Date” party.
However, it is notable that these changes invariably occur within a species. There are no oranguchimpillas in zoos. The results of cross-breeding within species as genetically similar as lions and tigers or horses and donkeys create ligers and mules…both of which have a remarkably uncooperative habit of being sterile every single time. To concur with David’s argument: Your honest disbelief in gravity doesn’t mean you won’t fall down when you trip over a rock. Evolution has been shouted aloud for so long, and in so many ways, that Christians who are tired of being the object of ridicule in science classes start to search for ways to reconcile the Bible with pseudo-science. “Pseudo”, by the way, means “False”. Sadly, although there is an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence for creationism, and although it takes a greater amount of faith (albeit less humility) to accept evolution than it does to acknowledge the Bible’s validity over the cry of the humanistic evolution crowd, Christians have in large part bowed to public pressure and allowed the “possibility” of evolution to creep in. Try teaching creationism or “intelligent design” at a secular university, however, and it becomes rapidly apparent how open-minded the world is about allowing the possibility of the Creator to be discussed in a scientific setting, let alone taught…watch Ben Stein’s “Expelled”, or better yet, try demonstrating the logical gaps in evolutionism in a collegiate science class. Good luck to you on that one, and I hope you’re already tenured.
The seduction song of evolution is nothing new, and should be familiar by now: “You aren’t responsible for your actions because you’re just a hairless advanced chimp…or fish with legs…or a rock, really. So there’s no sin, because you’re the god of your own destiny. You don’t need to acknowledge the God who created you, and who holds everyone to the same standard…which means you’re just as much a sinner as everyone else, and as helplessly in need of a Saviour as everyone else.” This immediately brings the Pirate Snake Captain and his Sin Sailors of WITB to mind, doesn’t it?
While I do not hold that anyone honestly believing in evolution can’t be a Christian (hey, I used to honestly believe that journalism was entirely fair and unbiased), I do agree with Phil that our focus is to be on the One who loves us enough to ransom us from sin, even when we didn’t deserve it.
Buck Denver had the “stereotypical” milquetoast Christian answer to this question…which is why Phil ended up handling it, and as much as I disagree with him on it, he put the focus where it belongs- or rather, on Whom it belongs. If someone honestly believes in evolution, while steadfastly pursuing Christ, I’d say they’re likely to run into the truth eventually. What’s much more important: That they run to the Truth of Christ. Iron sharpening iron happened on this forum and the entry before it, and I’d again concur with Phil: Discussing things without rancor or personal attack, and using the brains God gave us to learn more about the One who gave us those brains. Good job, Phil. Keep ’em coming.
answersingenesis.orgHere is a good discussion of the Big Bang from a biblical and scientific point of view:
Does the Big Bang Fit with the Bible?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/does-big-bang-fit-with-bible#
I firmly believe that God created all things. I believe that the Bible is true in everything that it teaches. I am also inclined to believe that God created through a long process where creatures evolved from other creatures.
The evidence from the genome sequencing being done is what did it for me. I don’t see any way to interpret the findings except one of the following:
1. Very different creatures (such as humans and mice) share a common biological ancestor.
2. God intentionally (and not out of necessity) created very different creatures so that it would (falsely) appear that they share a common biological ancestor.
I was convinced of this by reading Francis Collins’ book “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”. Collins is a firm Christian. He was the head of the Human Genome Project, and therefore a world-class expert in the science of genes and DNA.
You can listen to or watch a talk by Collins on the subject here:
http://franciscollinstalk.stanford.edu/
While I know that many Christians have come to believe in “theistic evolution” that God worked through a long process to create varying species, a major problem arises when you hit humans (arguably the highest of the “evolved” species). You see, no matter how you interpret “day” in Genesis, very specific details are given into how God created mankind, namely Adam and Eve. Despite the similarities to other creatures and no matter your interpretation of “day” to miss that point misses the point of Genesis entirely. God desired to have a relationship and so He created mankind. God, through Moses, wanted us to understand that we are not just the highest order of animals, we are of a different order completely. We are created in his image, not evolved until we reach a point that resembles God. I’m curious how those passages can be reconciled with a theistic evolution viewpoint? I must admit that I do not think modern humans are identical to Adam as there are obvious variations that occur within a species. What I am specifically addressing is the teaching that we share a common ancestor with modern apes vs us being created as a separate species from the beginning. Thoughts, please share.
Pastor Jared, I believe that God can turn clay into a morally responsible free willed person. But I believe He can also turn an ape into one. It doesn’t matter if I share a common ancestor with an ape, I’d still be a separate species.
On Ori & Jared’s points:
Ori has, possibly unintentionally, raised the question of belief versus Scripture. God has done all kinds of fantastic things which are beyond our comprehension: Parting seas, knocking down city walls after Israel obediently marched around them for a week (how’s that for “Ways You Wouldn’t Have Thought Of”?); the 10 plagues of Egypt, sending His own Son to die in our place to pay for our sins…
Now Ori mentions believing God can do something. Given Nebuchadnezzer’s transformation at God’s hand into a grazing, weird-feathered, long-nailed animal-minded being until Nebby was humbled before God, I cannot argue that God is capable of turning something into something else. Jesus instantly turned water into wine (and GOOD wine at that- fully aged…a point to consider), withered hands into whole ones, and dead people into live ones. However, the fact that God is ABLE to do something does not translate into God changing His character. (“If God changed who He was, He wouldn’t be God!”–C.Wagon) So God will not do something that contradicts Himself. Which means if His Word is to be trusted even one whit, He cannot do something that contradicts what His Word says. So if it says that He created man straight out of dust- not out of an ape, a goldfish, or a rock, ALL of which are prerequisities for evolution- and created woman out of Adam’s rib, then the whole theistic evolutionary idea falls on its head.
In response to the Pharisees blustering about their ancestors, Jesus warned them in Matthew 3:9 that God COULD raise up descendents of Abraham from rocks. Not that He did, but that He was ABLE to do so. The point in that case was that the Pharisees were relying on their ancestry to save them, rather than their God. The point in this case: Just because God CAN give you a winning lottery ticket, or strike you with a lightning bolt, or have a gold-plated Hummer land on your head (just because it’s not nice doesn’t mean it’s not miraculous), doesn’t mean He WILL. If His Word flat out says, “I made you directly out of dust, and your wife out of your rib bone,” this leaves no provision for monkeys, fish, protocritters or Uncle Rock.
God’s capacity is not a question. Our willingness to subject ourselves (including our beliefs) to what His Word plainly says is the question. I don’t have to like that God said, “Wipe out 7 tribes completely to take over this land”, but I have to accept that this was the command given, and that as God said it, it was right. Same deal with Man.
Jason, you’re right. The verb used in Genesis 2:7 is the one Hebrew uses for a potter molding something from clay. So unless the bible uses figurative language, it looks like direct creation from the Earth (as opposed to indirect – my pregnant wife eats, and that food turns into the baby). However, in this part of the Bible there are a lot of things that are don’t make sense in their literal meaning.
1. Genesis 2:4 talks about “the day that God made the heavens and the earth”, with parts of creation that in chapter 1 happened on the 3rd, 5th, and 6th days.
2. In Genesis 2:17 God tells Adam that he’ll die the day he eats from the tree of good and evil, Adam survived 930 years after that (Genesis 5:1).
3. Did God create the animals first (chapter 1), or Adam (2:18-19)?
4. In Genesis 3:7, Adam and Eve “lose their blindness” and realize they are naked. But how could becoming sinful be considered losing one’s blindness?
5. In Genesis 3:8, God is walking the garden. If God is everywhere and has no corporal body, how does He walk?
What I understand from reading this is that I don’t understand it, that it cannot be understood literally. Would God lie to us? Of course not. But would God use a figurative language, or tell us a fable? I often have to resort to inaccurate explanations when I teach my kids, and the mental gulf between them and myself is infinitely small compared to the one between me and God.
I may be wrong, and if so I pray God finds my mistakes amusing rather than a reason for anger. But I cannot see how to accept Genesis 2 as literal truth.
Ori, I hope to be able to offer just a little insight into some of your questions.
1. Genesis 2 is a retelling of Gen. 1. Chapter 1 is the chronological, step by step, chapter 2 gives greater emphasis on parts that are significant later on, e.g. the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Life, Adam’s rib being used to create Eve. It is not that these events are happening again, they are just being retold.
2. Adam’s body was created to live forever, to never die. When God tells him that he will die when he eats of the tree, he is not saying at that very moment, but that through this act death would enter the world. Death did eventually come for Adam. Potentially Adam’s mortal life was only sustained by access to the tree of life, which he was cut off from after his rebellion.
3. This one is a little easier than the others. Verse 19 says God had formed the animals, past tense. It was at the point that he decided to make a helper that he had the animals pass by Adam to be named, but also to see if one might be suitable. None were, so he created Eve. Adam was created last, because the whole order of creation was already present.
4. Sin is simply (possibly oversimplified) the deviation from God’s law. Prior to the eating of the tree, God’s only law was not to eat from the tree, therefore the only sin that could be committed was eating from the tree. After eating from the tree, the knowledge of evil was given to Adam and he realized all of the things he could do that would go against the will of God, thus his eyes were opened to God’s laws. Prior to eating, Adam could not do wrong because he did not know how to do wrong. After eating, he knew right and wrong. (I’ll admit, this is not my best explanation and I struggled with even including it. I may come back to this after I have done a little more research, so please bear with me).
5. This one will also be difficult because you are Jewish, but I will try. Most of us would explain this as a theopany. A theopany, you may know, is a manifestation of Jesus Christ prior to the incarnation. As we believe Jesus was also present and in union with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is also how many would explain Jacob wrestling with God at Bethel. It is also a plausible explanation for the identity of “the angel of the LORD” because after seeing Him many OT/Tanakh people exclaim they had seen the LORD. I would also challenge back with the story where Moses was only allowed to look at the LORD’s backside. If God is everywhere, how can He have a back? He must be able to take some physical form as He sees fit, which is easily explained in the incarnation. Unless you interpret all of the events to be symbolic imagery, but that creates strong problems for what parts, if any, of the Bible can be taken literally.
I hope this helps, if even a little. Obviously, there is a level God cannot communicate to us, but that is why He used man and man’s language to communicate to us in giving us the Bible. In proper reading of the Bible, every effort should be made to take a story literally unless clues within that story or the context surrounding it lead us to believe that it is figurative. Moses never gives us such clues, so every effort should be made to take this story literally. Looking forward to hearing back from you!
Pastor Jared, sorry I’m taking so long to reply – life’s gotten hectic (nothing bad). This is important, and I’ll answer when I get breathing time.