Undeception

If i could i would highly recommend you rent the dvd “The case for faith”. I just happened to find it as a new release at a local video store. Yes, its an apologetic view, but it does clearly represent some of the biggest questions about Christianity, with both points of view clearly represented. I hope you find the answers you seek.

In short, I don’t want Christianity’s credibility to be tied to the mast of any sinking ship
Bingo. The “creationist” (I’d prefer to refer to it as anti-evolutionist) misguided war on science is actually bad for the gospel. It is a factor in many Christians turning away from Christ and is also a factor in preventing others from taking the claims of Christ seriously.

So for those living in an evangelical ghetto, I guess this debate isn’t that important. For those that want Christ to be credible, in many situations it is very important.

steve martin´s last blog post..Pastoral Implications of Original Sin and Evolution: Q&A with George Murphy (Part 2)

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary gives this definition of ghetto:

“a situation that resembles a ghetto especially in conferring inferior status or limiting opportunity”

Sadly, this is all too true for the young-earth creationist/Intelligent Design community. Not only are their scientific methodologies inferior, their ability to spread the Gospel of Christ—without compromising Truth, I might add!—is severely limited.

Mike Beidler´s last blog post..Scientific and Theological Proofs for a Young Earth?

Excellent post…I think we could further say that those who find science troubling probably don’t have an adequate confidence in the scripture.

- Justin

Justin Detmers´s last blog post..Human Tetris: Awesome

@steve martin – Perhaps I should have said “special creationism”, but then I would have had to explain it. In actuality, it is because everyone knows what I’m referring to when I say “creationism” that I am not happy with the term “evolutionary creation(ism)”. When I do use the latter term I am careful not to affix -ism, in an attempt to minimize confusion.

@Mike Beidler – I agree, Steve’s “evangelical ghetto” is a poignant term. The saddest part is that the majority of evangelicals live in that ghetto.

@Justin Detmers – Thanks for the thumbs up, and welcome to my blog! Your comment is quite true, and I’d go further: those who find science troubling probably don’t have an adequate confidence in the God of Scripture.

@steve martin – Mr. Martin, the only sinking ship is the one in your mind which seems to be “tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” Perhaps you should do as Peter when he “got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus”.

Let’s get a couple of things straight. Evolution is not science. Science is not Evolution. There is no “war on science”. Creationism is not sinking. Jesus refers to it several times. Why refer to something as authoritative if you believe it is fallacious? If it is fallacious why refer to it authoritatively? You risk falsifying your statement if your authoritative source is discovered to be fallacious.

How can this so-called “war on science”, more properly said, “war on evolution” be “bad for the gospel”. The word “gospel” means “good news”. What is so “good” about this news? Why it’s the idea that people can be free from sin by faith in Jesus the Christ. Evolution has no use for christs or sins. If Evolution is true then Christ’s claims, Christianity’s credibility, and the boat of “creationism” is on the bottom of the Sea of Galilee. The gospel and creationism are essentially one and the same.

Evolution has no use for fairy tale religious blather. To the theory’s mind, creation and everything that makes authoritative concessions to it, is a bunch of well-intentioned lies at best and meaningless statements at worst, that has simply evolved in the human consciousness.

Jesus said it best. “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” This includes the Word of God, the eternal meme, and the meme of Evolution.

@Justin Detmers – What adequate confidence in Scripture? Do you mean believing Jesus when he refers to creation as a real event? Or do you mean the apostles when they refer to creation as a literal event and the redemption of Christ as the gospel or good news of liberation from the sin that enslaves this creation?

I mean, get real. It’s either literal special creation and 200-300 years of misguided belief in Darwinism/Evolution or its a nice metaphysical creation story and the All-Explanatory Law of Evolution. Make up your mind. There is no synthesis of the two where creation retains any relevant meaning. Why would you have any confidence in a mythical tale that some Rabbi happened to like retelling? Choose. If you sit on the fence, your lukewarm thoughts will be spewed. That’s the nature of memes.

@Steve – I live in that ghetto, and I look up from my squalor upon the ivory towers of thought that you live in. I wonder how long you can maintain your facade of double mindedness. You love the scripture and you love those who hate the scripture and esteem it as a collection of meaningless, irrelevant, self-referencing statements. Be careful that you do not deceive yourself and believe a lie.

Brandon,

I would ask for your patience in attempting to understand from where many of us are coming. If I may, I’d like to ask you a question that may help begin the process of helping you to understand how we can both trust Jesus’ words and believe in evolution … at the same time.

What is the smallest seed in the world? (Be sure to utilize an essentially literal translation such as the ESV, KJV, etc. to assist you.)

@Ecir Nodnarb –
Evolution is not science. Science is not Evolution.
Actually yes, evolution is science. It’s a scientific discipline, one that lies at the heart of all biology.

If Evolution is true then Christ’s claims, Christianity’s credibility, and the boat of “creationism” is on the bottom of the Sea of Galilee. The gospel and creationism are essentially one and the same.

This is precisely why creationism is bad for Christianity. To anyone with a decent understanding of science, it’s obvious that evolution is solid science. If they accept your position, they are left with two options – either deny the obvious, or reject religion. Literalism drives people toward atheism.

@Ian – To anyone with a decent understanding of science, it’s obvious that evolution is solid science. If they accept your position, they are left with two options – either deny the obvious, or reject religion. Literalism drives people toward atheism.
Very well said. I know that I probably would have converted to Christianity much earlier in my life my only exposure to it hadn’t been to all this anti-intellectual nonsense.

There is Truth and there is truth. Evolution as a subject of science and evidence is a kind of truth, important in understanding our world. Genesis and Creation are a kind of Truth – deeper, more powerful and meaningful, that is important in understanding our relationship with God and His to the world.

One does not preclude the other unless you make it so in your mind. There are no two masters here.

Congrats on all your intelligences.

What do you make of this quote?

“1 Now regarding your question about food that has been offered to idols. Yes, we know that “we all have knowledge” about this issue. But while knowledge makes us feel important, it is love that strengthens the church. Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes.

So, what about eating meat that has been offered to idols? Well, we all know that an idol is not really a god and that there is only one God. There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords. But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.

However, not all believers know this. Some are accustomed to thinking of idols as being real, so when they eat food that has been offered to idols, they think of it as the worship of real gods, and their weak consciences are violated. It’s true that we can’t win God’s approval by what we eat. We don’t lose anything if we don’t eat it, and we don’t gain anything if we do.

But you must be careful so that our freedom does not cause others with a weaker conscience to stumble. For if others see you—with your “superior knowledge”—eating in the temple of an idol, won’t they be encouraged to violate their conscience by eating food that has been offered to an idol? So because of your superior knowledge, a weak believer for whom Christ died will be destroyed. And when you sin against other believers[c] by encouraging them to do something they believe is wrong, you are sinning against Christ. So if what I eat causes another believer to sin, I will never eat meat again as long as I live—for I don’t want to cause another believer to stumble.”

You talk of creationists turning people away from Christ.. so what are you doing? There are those in the church today we may dislike, we may disagree with and may not be as knowledgeable than us, but they have the knowledge and the love of God inside them and talk like this will simple trample all over their faith.

Does a fireman need to know and understand the life and times of Oscar Wilde to save someone from a burning building? Does a Chef have to have studied the anatomy of insects to be able to cook a good meal? Why do Christians have to inform themselves on just one aspect of science in order to live out their faith?

Evolution isn’t even a theory, it’s a collection of theories that most fundamental creationists wouldn’t disagree with about 80% of it. Instead, you and the Dawkinistas are confusing the issue by wrapping it all in one encompassing theory that must be completely accepted or rejected! No wonder fundamental creationists are made to look stupid. It’s a stupid, moronic debate flamed by shameless self-publicists who have long given up science and fancied a go at philosophy instead.

I understand science to be the observation and study of the material world along with hypothesis and theory. Nothing about science is incompatible with Christianity, it’s only where scientists attempt to become philosophers themselves where the two subjects get confused.

I believe in Geography by the way… Does the fact that Edinburgh is 654 nautical miles from Zurich prove or disprove the existence of God?

Alex Fear´s last blog post..[Educashun] Real-life Monopoly Game Mod

Can you please point to where in the Bible it describes aspects of the theories of evolution? I’m not saying that if an electric toothbrush isn’t in the bible it doesn’t exist or it’s the devils instrument but I just don’t see where it’s necessary to faith.

Once again, does a fireman need to know Oscar Wilde? Does a Chef need to know insects? It just seems like one categorical error.

Your OP came across both patronising and appeasing.. yeah I’m guilty of the same myself sometimes.

Oh, you saw Expelled, too, huh?

No, what’s it like? Any good? I don’t really bother much with Christian apologetic movies, not sure I see the point much.

Also I must say your comment smacks of elitism.. people less intelligent than you don’t deserve to be on the internet? Really? Would that be coming from a Darwinist viewpoint or a Christ-like mentality?

Suppose you’re against net neutrality too…

Alex Fear´s last blog post..[Educashun] Real-life Monopoly Game Mod

Alex,

Can you please point to where in the Bible it describes aspects of the theories of evolution?

In short, it doesn’t. It does, however, teach a flat earth and a three-tiered universe, complete with a physical underworld (for the dead), as well as the one-seed theory (that barrenness was limited only to the woman’s womb and not the man’s sperm count), that the orchid seed is not the smallest seed in the world, that bats are birds, and that rabbits chew the cud.

In which one of those theories or paradigms do you not believe? Are they not necessary to your faith as a result of being taught throughout Scripture?

@Ecir Nodnarb – @Ecir Nodnarb – @Ecir Nodnarb –
Ecir, hello there. Your comments strike me as a little less than respectful, so being a stranger and having a bit of trouble with loaded questions: how about I politely off some food for thought? (And please know that I mean you no harm and I hope that our speech, even when bold, will never be that of a clanging gong.)

I think I may know where creationists are coming from. I was raised in with a fundamentalist mindset on this issue and used to get pretty worked up as teenager. I had it drilled into my head that I was a victim and I had swallowed like gospel, the polarizing ‘either/or’ dogma which made me pretty repugnant and combative. However, as I began to read and re-read the text, I wanted to understand God and be personally transformed, instead of amassing information for arguments…my heart softened and after the embarrassment went away, once the log was gone, I could see that:

With the age of the earth and the 6 -24hr. creation week…Genesis first presents us with an unformed world, then the creation gets going without saying how long the unformed earth was in existence. I’ve even heard Mark Driscoll (Author/pastor/Acts 29 guy who is squarely evangelical and even conservative in many ways) say that he too believes in an old earth, and I suppose I could find a hyperlink to that message if need be.

About the days: our modern conception of time based on the sun and the moon, which didn’t even exist until day 4…a literal day couldn’t have existed with time as we know it until then. Also, keep in mind that the Hebrew word for day, ‘yom’, is translated many ways just in Genesis alone. When I’m “real” (you told me to “get real”) with the inspired Word, I’m left without an intelligible measurement for time as we know it. The bible is true in all facets, yet it won’t give us the nuance of every truth – unfortunately, it won’t tell us about the internet, calculus, or how to change the oil on my car…which would be quite helpful for me.

I’d also like to humbly suggest that the anger and presumption in this debate is rooted more in a US culture war than empirical science/theology. The scope of Christian orthodoxy is broad on this issue and that gives us the freedom to offer grace and respect those who disagree with us.

Science is not your enemy & neither am I.

In Him,
Justin

p.s.

I in no way, shape, or form affirm the material philosophies that are sometimes associated with the natural sciences.

Justin Detmers´s last blog post..The Blue Parakeet #2

It does, however, teach a flat earth

Where? To my knowledge, it doesn’t.

and a three-tiered universe,

No idea what this is. Guess I’m not up to your intellectual standard and therefore not a good Christian…

complete with a physical underworld (for the dead),

Where is it described physically?

as well as the one-seed theory (that barrenness was limited only to the woman’s womb and not the man’s sperm count)

Not to my knowledge. Again where does it state that barrenness is limited to women? Neither the old or new testament mention drugs, planets or tigers… guess by that definition they don’t exist.

that the orchid seed is not the smallest seed in the world,

Where does it emphatically state this?

that bats are birds,

Where?

and that rabbits chew the cud.

Where?

In your pursuit to marry Christianity and Science you appear to be excluding all other forms of study, namely historical, geographical and cultural. For example: There are many historical accounts of Unicorns such as Strabo’s “one-horned horses” or Marco Polo’s “ugly brutes”, but historians/biologists agree that they are describing the Rhinoceros, Urus or other types of bull.

Does it mean that they didn’t see a Unicorn? They saw what they could only (or chose to) at the time describe as a Unicorn. It’s only in the last 200-300 years that modern biologists have come along and have been better able to study, class and name these animals.

Alex Fear´s last blog post..[Educashun] Real-life Monopoly Game Mod

Once again, does a fireman need to know Oscar Wilde?

No, but he’d better know what paths out of the building are clear of flaming debris. Creationism is lousy, lousy science that claims that if evolution is right, then the Bible is useless. If that’s a message believers take to heart, then if/when they discover that evolution is in fact a very successful, very useful scientific theory, their faith is in jeopardy. To keep on with the fireman example, you want to make sure that his hose is filled with water, not gasoline.

Mike states: It does, however, teach a flat earth

Alex responds: Where? To my knowledge, it doesn’t.

Daniel 4:9-11 Nebuchadnezzer describes a dream in which he saw a tree that grew so tall it was visible “to the ends of the earth.” That’s not possible on a spherical earth.

Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13 Jesus is tempted by Satan. In one temptation, Satan takes him to a high mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the earth. Again, not possible on a spherical earth.

Psalm 19 speaks of the sun, and says that it “rises at one end of the heavens” and that “nothing is hidden from its heat.” This makes sense for a flat earth, but for a spherical earth the sun does not rise from any end of the heavens, and at all times one of the poles is hidden from its heat.

I’m sure there are more scriptural arguments to be made.

Mike said: and a three-tiered universe,

Alex responded: No idea what this is.

You can find a graphic of it here.

Basically, the upper tier consists of an enormous celestial ocean, held back from the earth by a solid dome, or firmament. The Hebrew word for this, raqia, is translated “expanse” in the NIV and NAS, so it can be easy to miss. The middle tier is the earth. The lower tier is the underworld and the waters below the earth, upon which the earth rests with its foundations.

Biblical evidence for this can be found in the following:

In Genesis 1 God creates a raqia to separate the waters above from the waters below (translated “firmament” in the KJV and “dome” in the NRSV).

In Exodus 20:4 God instructs the Israelites not to create a graven image of any creature that lives “in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” NAS and KJV translate “waters below” more literally, as “waters under the earth.”

In Psalm 104:3 the Psalmist says that God stretches out the heavens like a tent and “lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.”

In Psalm 148:4 the Psalmist commands praise of God from “you highest heavens and you waters above the skies.”

In Psalm 136:6 the Psalmist says that it is God “who spread out the earth upon the waters.”

Mike stated: that the orchid seed is not the smallest seed in the world

Alex responded: Where does it emphatically state this?

In the parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32 and Mark 4:30-32) Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. (NIV uses a rather weaselly translation to make it look like he’s saying it’s the smallest seed 1st century Palestineans used, but in the Greek he’s pretty clearly saying that it’s the smallest seed there is. Other translations, like NAS and KJV are more faithful to the Greek.)

Mike stated: that bats are birds

Alex responded: Where?

Leviticus 11:13-19 and Deuteronomy 14:11-18 both lay out a list of “birds” that are unclean to eat, and both include the bat.

Mike stated: that rabbits chew the cud.

Alex responded: Where?

Leviticus 11:6 – “The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.”

I think Mike is right about the physical underworld and one-seed theory, but those would take a lot longer to go into, and require a lot more discussion about Biblical passages in relation to theories of the day, rather than simply quoting the passages themselves.

In short, there are a lot of things in the Bible that were perfectly uncontroversial to the original audiences that we now know not to be the case. The two main conclusions one can draw from this is that a) the Bible is bunk, or that b) God accomodated man’s ignorance in inspiring the Bible. Option b) is what the Christians on this and other blogs advocate. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who try to create an option c) arguing against all evidence to the contrary that the Bible contains no scientifically innacurate statements. I think that’s a losing strategy. It’s the fireman turning the nozzle on his hose o’ gasoline.

Once again, does a fireman need to know Oscar Wilde?

No, but he’d better know what paths out of the building are clear of flaming debris. Creationism is lousy, lousy science that claims that if evolution is right, then the Bible is useless. If that’s a message believers take to heart, then if/when they discover that evolution is in fact a very successful, very useful scientific theory, their faith is in jeopardy. To keep on with the fireman example, you want to make sure that his hose is filled with water, not gasoline.

Mike states: It does, however, teach a flat earth

Alex responds: Where? To my knowledge, it doesn’t.

Daniel 4:9-11 Nebuchadnezzer describes a dream in which he saw a tree that grew so tall it was visible “to the ends of the earth.” That’s not possible on a spherical earth.

Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13 Jesus is tempted by Satan. In one temptation, Satan takes him to a high mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the earth. Again, not possible on a spherical earth.

Psalm 19 speaks of the sun, and says that it “rises at one end of the heavens” and that “nothing is hidden from its heat.” This makes sense for a flat earth, but for a spherical earth the sun does not rise from any end of the heavens, and at all times one of the poles is hidden from its heat.

I’m sure there are more scriptural arguments to be made.

Mike said: and a three-tiered universe,

Alex responded: No idea what this is.

You can find a graphic of it here.

Basically, the upper tier consists of an enormous celestial ocean, held back from the earth by a solid dome, or firmament. The Hebrew word for this, raqia, is translated “expanse” in the NIV and NAS, so it can be easy to miss. The middle tier is the earth. The lower tier is the underworld and the waters below the earth, upon which the earth rests with its foundations.

Biblical evidence for this can be found in the following:

In Genesis 1 God creates a raqia to separate the waters above from the waters below (translated “firmament” in the KJV and “dome” in the NRSV).

In Exodus 20:4 God instructs the Israelites not to create a graven image of any creature that lives “in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” NAS and KJV translate “waters below” more literally, as “waters under the earth.”

In Psalm 104:3 the Psalmist says that God stretches out the heavens like a tent and “lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.”

In Psalm 148:4 the Psalmist commands praise of God from “you highest heavens and you waters above the skies.”

In Psalm 136:6 the Psalmist says that it is God “who spread out the earth upon the waters.”

Mike stated: that the orchid seed is not the smallest seed in the world

Alex responded: Where does it emphatically state this?

In the parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32 and Mark 4:30-32) Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. (NIV uses a rather weaselly translation to make it look like he’s saying it’s the smallest seed 1st century Palestineans used, but in the Greek he’s pretty clearly saying that it’s the smallest seed there is. Other translations, like NAS and KJV are more faithful to the Greek.)

Mike stated: that bats are birds

Alex responded: Where?

Leviticus 11:13-19 and Deuteronomy 14:11-18 both lay out a list of “birds” that are unclean to eat, and both include the bat.

Mike stated: that rabbits chew the cud.

Alex responded: Where?

Leviticus 11:6 – “The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.”

I think Mike is right about the physical underworld and one-seed theory, but those would take a lot longer to go into, and require a lot more discussion about Biblical passages in relation to theories of the day, rather than simply quoting the passages themselves.

In short, there are a lot of things in the Bible that were perfectly uncontroversial to the original audiences that we now know not to be the case. The two main conclusions one can draw from this is that a) the Bible is bunk, or that b) God accomodated man’s ignorance in inspiring the Bible. Option b) is what the Christians on this and other blogs advocate. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who try to create an option c) arguing against all evidence to the contrary that the Bible contains no scientifically innacurate statements. I think that’s a losing strategy. It’s the fireman turning the nozzle on his hose o’ gasoline.

@Steve

When someone is convinced a position is unthinkable, it’s hard for incredulity at others’ acceptance of it to not appear crass; I did not want to come across that way. What you took as “patronising and appeasing” I meant as conciliatory and a concerted effort to avoid being strident and snide. I wonder, did anyone else take offense at my tone?

Fair enough, I won’t raise this issue with you further…

Remember, you’re the one that drew the (inapt) parallel between creationists and Paul’s “weak believers”. Alex, please draw back and look at my comment again. I must confess that I suspected that someone bent on marginalizing my position by avoiding my arguments and making attacks on my character would draw out that meaning from it. If you’re intent on being the enforcer of some internet benevolence code that shields all “weak” Christians from sincere and respectful criticism of any aspect of their belief, you must be one busy guy.

I do not think it was inapt. I’m actually getting to the motivation behind Pauls words and actions. Science is not a doctrine.. it’s a method, it’s a way of studying the world, a tool. It’s not a doctrine, it’s not a creed, it’s not a religion, therefore just as you point out the inapt parallels with your approach to Christians who are not intellectually astute and Pauls food offered to idols, you are drawing equally inapt parallels between correcting someone on a matter of science and correcting someone on a matter of doctrine.

The parellel I draw is apt. Since you are discussing ‘weaker’ Christians (or to use a term coined by your other commenters here ‘clueless Christians’). Much of your language and the way your arguments were presented may appease some anti-theistic scientists but could turn off many who don’t know as much science or feel like they are under attack from the anti-theist movement.

Have you ever heard the term that a herd of Buffalo only move as fast as its slowest Buffalo? There are interesting approaches in the New Testament to how to treat people.. on the one hand we have Jesus saying “let the dead bury the dead” but then we have the later epistles which take a more gentle approach to believers, to do everything in love lest we sound like a “clashing cymbal”.

I am aware of the irony that I may just be the one of the clashing cymbols here on your blog but I find myself compelled to make a case for those you are dismissing- a personal case, not a scientific case.

In fact, it was the cultural contextualization of Scripture that encouraged me to recognize Genesis as Ancient Near Eastern in character and to cease looking at it as a modern, 21st century-style historiographic account; from there, I was free to stop proclaiming a vast atheistic conspiracy in the natural sciences.

Where did I state I took Genesis as a historical account? There are actually 2 accounts of creation in Genesis to my knowledge, but you probably already know this. The collected books of the bible are full of visions, prophecy, poetry, song, history, census data and witness accounts.. this is what I was alluding to.

@AWM

Creationism is lousy, lousy science that claims that if evolution is right, then the Bible is useless.

I’ve never thought that Creationism stated that, however I agree that a believer should not take it to heart or rest their faith on these theories.

If that’s a message believers take to heart, then if/when they discover that evolution is in fact a very successful, very useful scientific theory, their faith is in jeopardy.

To compare faith/religion to evolution is just plain wrong. In my first comment I asked the question “I believe in Geography by the way… Does the fact that Edinburgh is 654 nautical miles from Zurich prove or disprove the existence of God?” This question, of course, is committing a syllogistic fallacy, it’s begging the question. Comparing the theories of evolution to religion is the same thing.

The problem that Steve is describing in his post is exegetical not scientific. People do need to be taught how to read and interpret scripture, how to discern between different types of text. Making a argument for this from science, let alone evolution is just a completely foolish approach.. and if you are wanting to convince anyone to read the bible differently see my comments above, talking about people in such a way is not going to convince them to interpret scripture correctly.

If you read scripture correctly, you become aware of the many things that aren’t actually in the bible.. if you’re really smart you don’t form an opinion on something before you’ve seen evidence and had it explained to you by someone who is in authority to interpret scripture – just as you would approach a scientist to discuss the theories of evolution and some of the failings.

Also, there are plenty on the side of the evolution religion who are making stuff up as they go along, who are not scientists but are simply angry at Mom and Pop for taking them to boring church when they were younger. Yes there are Christians in the church who are not reading the bible correctly or making stuff up, but there’s plenty on both sides of the debate.

Daniel 4:9-11 Nebuchadnezzer describes a dream in which he saw a tree that grew so tall it was visible “to the ends of the earth.” That’s not possible on a spherical earth.

Umm… ok this is a dream?! ergo it’s going to be allegorical and contain some fantasy at the same time. Perhaps you need to learn exegesis rather than approach the bible with a scientific hat on for every word.

Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13 Jesus is tempted by Satan. In one temptation, Satan takes him to a high mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the earth. Again, not possible on a spherical earth.

Yeah.. interestingly enough even if the earth WAS spherical, do you think Jesus would have been able to observe ALL the kingdoms without the SUPER TELESCOPIC VISUAL BINOCULARS that Satan gave to him?

Psalm 19 speaks of the sun, and says that it “rises at one end of the heavens” and that “nothing is hidden from its heat.” This makes sense for a flat earth, but for a spherical earth the sun does not rise from any end of the heavens, and at all times one of the poles is hidden from its heat.

So what word do you use for ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ since that’s what I use yet, baffingly, they are completely wrong.

Regardless, what point are you trying to prove? That 1st Century Palestinians were not worldly explorers and astronomers? I imagine that most everybody did think the world was flat back then, scientists, atheists and believers alike.

I don’t believe the bible is infallible if that’s the point you’re trying to get across- I think that’s where we’re going right? Like I said – exegesis, man, not science.

Basically, the upper tier consists of an enormous celestial ocean, held back from the earth by a solid dome, or firmament. The Hebrew word for this, raqia, is translated “expanse” in the NIV and NAS, so it can be easy to miss. The middle tier is the earth. The lower tier is the underworld and the waters below the earth, upon which the earth rests with its foundations.

“expanse” doesn’t seem like an unreasonable word to describe the vacuum of space that couldn’t be observed above the clouds.

In Genesis 1 God creates a raqia to separate the waters above from the waters below (translated “firmament” in the KJV and “dome” in the NRSV).

Who’s to say when God created the universe, thousands or trillions of years ago that he didn’t do this?

In Exodus 20:4 God instructs the Israelites not to create a graven image of any creature that lives “in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” NAS and KJV translate “waters below” more literally, as “waters under the earth.”

We just don’t know if there are creatures living “above” on other planets do we now? and I don’t know it seems to me that it could be talking about sea creatures and the vast underwater mountains and valleys perhaps?

No I’m not sure I really believe that and I don’t want to be led into defending creationism since it’s not the reason I originally commented, but I believe that God was talking to people in that time and place in terms that they understood.

In Psalm 104:3 the Psalmist says that God stretches out the heavens like a tent and “lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.”

Ok let’s ask, how did God create the universe? was it a bit more like a camper van than a tent?

This is all poetic imagery to me, it’s not meant to be read like a SCIENTIST!

In Psalm 148:4 the Psalmist commands praise of God from “you highest heavens and you waters above the skies.”

Can’t breath in water, can’t breath in space.. yada yada yada.. why am I even trying to come up with ideas?

In Psalm 136:6 the Psalmist says that it is God “who spread out the earth upon the waters.”

Enough already!

In the parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32 and Mark 4:30-32) Jesus says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. (NIV uses a rather weaselly translation to make it look like he’s saying it’s the smallest seed 1st century Palestineans used, but in the Greek he’s pretty clearly saying that it’s the smallest seed there is. Other translations, like NAS and KJV are more faithful to the Greek.)

Two questions for you:
1. If the bible is infallible (and it looks like your trying to state that it is) is this a fictional account.. is it made up.. where do you draw the line.. did this Jesus actually exist?
2. If the bible is not infallible, if Jesus did exist, this did actually happen and Jesus did actually say these words.. why do you think he said it, why do you think he chose a mustard seed if he knew and others knew it wasn’t the smallest?

It may help you to approach question 2 not as a scientist, but as a theologian.

Leviticus 11:13-19 and Deuteronomy 14:11-18 both lay out a list of “birds” that are unclean to eat, and both include the bat.

Heh, you forgot insects! See my other comment on unicorns.

Leviticus 11:6 – “The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.”

OK, describe ‘chewing the cud’ to me, but lay it out as a Jew would living in 1400 BC.

We’re really just splitting hairs with all this stuff aren’t we? What it really boils down to is this: You can’t expect people who lived 2000 years ago to be able to understand and explain the known universe as a person living today.

This is no problem if you approach the bible in a theological manner, not a scientific manner (but you can apply science, history, culture, biology, sociology and such to it in your exegesis).

It’s no problem if you accept the bible as fallible, inspired work of God, but if you approach it in a no-nonsense scientific, 2000AD, infallible Word of God then you are going to have problems like above.

And so here you’ve got me defending the bible and somehow defending creationism when I’m not even here to argue those things.

I think Mike is right about the physical underworld and one-seed theory, but those would take a lot longer to go into, and require a lot more discussion about Biblical passages in relation to theories of the day, rather than simply quoting the passages themselves.

Right in what sense? No – I’ve never even heard of the one-seed theory in my 11 years as a Christian, I looked it up today on the tubes and it’s complete rubbish so what’s next?

Also physical underworld.. if you can’t explain it away with one verse like you did the stuff above then you’re basically cherry-picking. I though the idea here was to take every verse of the bible literally?

In short, there are a lot of things in the Bible that were perfectly uncontroversial to the original audiences that we now know not to be the case. The two main conclusions one can draw from this is that a) the Bible is bunk, or that b) God accomodated man’s ignorance in inspiring the Bible. Option b) is what the Christians on this and other blogs advocate.

Well now we are getting somewhere!

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who try to create an option c) arguing against all evidence to the contrary that the Bible contains no scientifically innacurate statements. I think that’s a losing strategy. It’s the fireman turning the nozzle on his hose o’ gasoline.

I don’t disagree but I don’t think there are a ‘lot of people’. They may have the loudest voices but then vested interests seek them out anyway to use them to discredit Christianity as whole.

In short, you are damned if you do, damned if you don’t. There is an anti-theistic movement and they seek the loud and the ignorant to add credibility to their own flawed philosophy.. On the one hand perhaps there is a place where ideas can be exchanged with these people, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of those who are not as gifted or intellectual.. on the other hand I wonder if it’s all just pearls before swine?

Alex Fear´s last blog post..[Educashun] Real-life Monopoly Game Mod

Alex,

Reading your post I get the sense that you are agreeing vehemently with me. I thought the purpose of my comment was clear, but maybe I was wrong. So here’s the brief rundown from my perspective.

1. You said, in effect, all this evolution stuff (pro or con) isn’t very necessary for Christianity per se, and we should be wary of hurting the faith of creationist brothers.
2. You also said the Bible doesn’t talk about aspects of evolution.
3. Mike, in response to 2., said you’re right, it doesn’t. He also named a number of scientific facts and theories that it does touch on, and how it is on the wrong side of what we understand about all of them.
4. In response to Mike, you cast doubt that it did in fact do those things, asking, for instance, where the Bible says that the orchid seed isn’t the smallest of seeds.
5. In response to your point (1. above) about evolution and Christianity in general, I said the problem is that a lot of Christians are told that evolution and Christianity are at odds, so they need to embrace creationism. Trouble is, creationism is shoddy pseudo-science, so if Christians believe that evolution is in conflict with Christianity, and then figure out that evolution is actually a well-supported theory, their faith will likely come into crisis.
6. Then I went on to document five of the seven claims that Mike made concerning the Bible and science, in response to your apparent skepticism.
7. I closed by saying you can deny the science, you can deny the Bible, or you can say that the Bible was accomodated to the people it was written to.

That brings us to your last post, in which you seem to have the impression that I’m saying the Bible is meant to be a science textbook, and that it fails at this. That is not the case. I’m saying (or at least I believe) that the Bible isn’t meant to be a science textbook, and will therefore fail at being one if you try to press it into service as such.

You and I seem to agree on this last point, as you repeatedly note the need for proper exegesis, and state:

What it really boils down to is this: You can’t expect people who lived 2000 years ago to be able to understand and explain the known universe as a person living today.

Exactly. In general, creationists disagree with us on this. They say you can expect God to give a message to pre-scientific people that will be completely scientifically accurate by 21st century standards. That’s dangerous, because if believers trust the creationists, and then see the scientific errors in the Bible, their response may well be that it’s time to leave the faith. They need to know that it’s possible to embrace evolution and Christianity.

Originally Posted By AMWSorry that post was so long, by the way, but I think Alex’s questions deserved a reasonably full treatment.

Many thanks to AMW, who defended my assertions with considerable skill!

Alex wrote: This is all poetic imagery to me, it’s not meant to be read like a SCIENTIST!

Ah! There’s the rub. You’ve just admitted that you read the Bible through a modern, 21st-century lens, allowing the findings of modern science to inform your interpretation. That’s the first step toward a correct hermeneutic. The second step is recognizing that what is “phenomenological language” to you was NOT phenomenological language to the original readers. To them, it was the science of the day. It didn’t merely “appear” that the sun rose and set; it actually DID rise and set. Thus, we come full circle: recognizing that what appear to be descriptions of the natural world in the Bible aren’t just “poetic imagery” but rather literal descriptions of what they observed.

In short, Genesis 1 is to be read literally. To the ancient Hebrews, God really did create the world in the fashion that Genesis 1 describes. (The 6-day structure of the narrative is an entirely different matter.) At the same time, however, we should reject the science that the Bible puts forth in favor of our own modern observations (keeping in mind that our current theories are subject to change with additional data), yet feel free to embrace the theological “truths” (as we understand them) found therein.

This step is very counter-intuitive, especially to people predisposed to believing that the Bible is “inerrant” in matters relating to science.

@AMW

Reading your post I get the sense that you are agreeing vehemently with me.

It does seem that way…

I agree with all your comments on your last post.. there is one thing though, and I think this is where a definition of creationist has been missed and is needed.

See I know people who are creationists and they’re not a bad sort, they also don’tview the bible as infallible, they are aware of errors and failings, they are open minded when Genesis is discussed in terms of fact/allegory. But then maybe what I know as a ‘creationist’ is different from what you know as a ‘creationist’. Perhaps it’s culture? British Christians tend to be a bit more mellowed out and informed than American ones (now I’m in danger of sounding elitist).

I think in their heart of hearts most creationists (that I know at least) know that it’s possible to embrace the theories of evolution and Christianity, just as it is to embrace drug use, rock music, prostitution, paying taxes and drinking alchohol with Christianity.

That is not down to the openness and scientific support of evolution.. that’s down the nature of Christianity itself – Christ does not condemn, he welcomes all who will welcome him and let them form their own ideas about everything else.

@Mike

Many thanks to AMW, who defended my assertions with considerable skill!

Yes, I forgot to thank you AMW for taking the time to respond.

Ah! There’s the rub. You’ve just admitted that you read the Bible through a modern, 21st-century lens, allowing the findings of modern science to inform your interpretation. That’s the first step toward a correct hermeneutic. The second step is recognizing that what is “phenomenological language” to you was NOT phenomenological language to the original readers.

Not so. If I told you I had a dream last night that I was flying, you would not conclude I was

a) lying or
b) interpreting what I was experience when in actual fact I was falling

You would not look at the scientifically to analyse what it was I was trying to communicate because there’s no need to apply science in this instance (unless I asked you “where and how was my dream formed?” for example).

Instead you would apply psychology to try to understand why I dreamed I was flying eg. have I felt a burden being lifted off me or something.

So when I read that people have visions, dreams or revealed things through a physical manifestation of the spiritual realm then there is no need to apply science as the question is not “how”, it’s “why”.

This is where you are making the biggest categorical error.

To them, it was the science of the day. It didn’t merely “appear” that the sun rose and set; it actually DID rise and set. Thus, we come full circle: recognizing that what appear to be descriptions of the natural world in the Bible aren’t just “poetic imagery” but rather literal descriptions of what they observed.

So now that the truth has been revealed (the earth revolves around the sun) why are you still using the words “sunset” and “sunrise”? Will people studying this blog in 2000 years time think we were less informed because we are using such words?

This last verse you quotes was from the psalms.. once again it’s a song, it’s rhetorical, poetic.

You won’t find an instance of someone in the bible being led to see or being told by God:

“Behold.. this is how I made the earth, I made a big round disk, I threw in some mountains, some trees, then I made you and put you here. Don’t get too close to the edge of the disk or lo, you will fall off”

You will not find this because a) I God would not say that if he created a planet b) it wasn’t necessary and c) God was usually communicating this stuff through dreams and visions and it wasn’t for scientific purposes, it was for prophetic purposes.

In short, Genesis 1 is to be read literally. To the ancient Hebrews, God really did create the world in the fashion that Genesis 1 describes. (The 6-day structure of the narrative is an entirely different matter.)

Gonna have to ask if all Jews read it this way. I understand the original hebrew deosn’t describe days but periods of light and periods of darkness.. also as I’m sure you know 7 was a special number symbolising completeness.. so did the ancient Jews really read this literally?

At the same time, however, we should reject the science that the Bible puts forth in favor of our own modern observations (keeping in mind that our current theories are subject to change with additional data), yet feel free to embrace the theological “truths” (as we understand them) found therein.

Well I would say that we should question everything, even the science. The collected theories of evolution are still not perfect and rather inadequate at telling how we came to be. There may be a consensus on the uber-theory of evolution but when you get into the details, scientists disagree on many different parts, components that make up the uber-theory are being discarded all the time as new evidence is found.. yet people feel free to dismiss other theories entirely and treat the uber-theory as though it was one big established fact.

I’m skeptical of everything. I find certain theories of evolution compelling, however I find certain theories put forward by creationists equally compelling. I’m content to practice my faith without needing all the answers. Belief in all the collected theories of evolution will not help me be faithful to my wife, be faithful God, love my neighbour, solve crime, solve hunger, solve poverty or change the lives of everyday people.

It’s just a scientific theory.. and I say that in the sense of it makes no damn difference whether I believe it or not, not in the sense that it is easily dismissed.

(just as belief in the theory of gravity doesn’t prevent me flying off into space).

Alex Fear´s last blog post..[Educashun] Real-life Monopoly Game Mod

Hi,

I’ve responded but it’s in moderation.. I get that sometimes automatically on my own blog so could you check?

Thanks.

Steve said “(”Uh, hello! A creationist geologist I heard said that the speed of light has slowed over time. Get a clue!”) ”

Obviously if we can see a star that is 5 million light years away and the earth is only 6000 years old, then light must have traveled faster in the past, DUH!

No wait, God could have made the light waves in path from the star already to the earth. But what about exploding stars? Well God could have created the image of the star exploding without bothering to create the star itself that ‘supposedly’ was 5 million light years away.

Or wait…maybe the stars are actually all only 6000 light years away and all our telescopes are wrong? Maybe it is an illusion caused by the remnants of the water canopy that surrounded the earth before Noah’s flood?

Hmmmm…so many good options.

(btw…loved the post)

I had one more thought…

I’m interested in where this theory that the earth is a sphere has come from.. did it really come from the bible?

“And He will lift up a standard for the nations And assemble the banished ones of Israel, And will gather the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth.” – Isaiah 11:12

Surely someone who read the bible literally would understand the earth to be 4 sides of a square or rectangle, not a sphere?

This throws a spanner in the works somewhat and reveals what appears to be straw man in this instance.

Originally Posted By Alex Fear
The problem that Steve is describing in his post is exegetical not scientific. People do need to be taught how to read and interpret scripture, how to discern between different types of text. Making a argument for this from science, let alone evolution is just a completely foolish approach.. and if you are wanting to convince anyone to read the bible differently see my comments above, talking about people in such a way is not going to convince them to interpret scripture correctly.

I have said time and again that we cannot simply debunk creationism scientifically and expect Christians to fare well: concomitantly, we must provide Christians a better hermeneutic and a corrected view of the nature of the Bible. Without this, creationists being convinced of evolution are likelier to leave the faith than live with the cognitive dissonance between literalism and the evidence. And I explicitly made reference to problems of hermeneutics, together with two separate links where I have done just what you suggest, under point 3 of this very post!! This is the kind of thing that makes me think you wandered into this post looking for a fight before reading the OP.

Notice, too, that my main post did not argue in favor of evolutionary theory as much as the value of looking into the debate. One major reason I omitted (mostly because there has already been so much written on it in the blogosphere) is that those not well grounded in the faith who grow up thinking that they can only embrace either Christianity or evolution and not both, when encountering the mounting evidence for common descent and evolutionary theory, have nowhere to run but atheism.

As I told you, I embraced evolution because of a corrected bibliology, following my recognition of the need to interpret things contextually rather than literalistically; but something that helped me understand that something was amiss with my inherited literalistic hermeneutic was the fact that even Christians disagreed about whether the physical world corresponded with the YEC interpretation of Genesis.

You said on the other post:

I really feel it is down to individual Christians to study and make their own minds up.

I find it a little ironic that you’re advocating Christians studying and making their minds up, and yet apparently chastising my posts for being a source for their study. I agree that studying is a good thing; in fact, it was the people who decided not to study that I was addressing (as seen in the first few lines of the OP).

Like I said on the previous post, it’s not something that is going to change a persons behavior and it’s not essential to living out faith.

Alex, I think we are arriving at the heart of the problem.

This “live and let live” attitude does not fly over here: it’s warfare. In America, evolutionists are evilutionists; to a person, all of our “leaders” say so. American evangelical culture typically follows a core group of authorized teachers unquestioningly, including the men I mentioned specifically in my first post. If it were just a matter of most evangelicals not understanding some aspect of science, it would be altogether minor and not deserve the attention I gave it. But it is much more than that. The very fact that we have scientists hiding within their own churches for fear of being marginalized as theological liberals is painful enough. But how is evangelism not “essential to living out faith”? I’m telling you, in America anyway (and from many reports, abroad especially), the Christian faith is equated not only with anti-evolutionism, but an anti-science stance that makes our faith a laughingstock and that, rightly, is a fountain of irritation because of the false accusations of professional incompetence and/or atheistic bias on the part of scientists.

Because of special creationism, thousands of people are leaving the faith; because of special creationism, thousands of people are ridiculing our faith. If special creationism is true, well, I suppose we’ll just have to take our lumps. But why should I be content to let all this happen if special creationism is not true? Why should I not encourage people to look into the debate?

Hmm..

Fair enough Steve. I originally posted on here because the way you were coming across, not the actual points you were making. It got carried away, but I thought it was worth going there.

I noticed people were making some potentially beardronneous claims about specific out-of-context bible verses – of how they could be interpreted literally – when it doesn’t seem to me that a creationist or the original authors/audience would interpret it as such.

But then it does seem you are describing an American problem. As one wise man once said to me “American Christianity is as wide and as deep as the Mississippi river”.. and before I get blasted for America-bashing, it was an American who first spoke those words to me.

BTW What do you mean by “special creationism”?