Serving up Sweet FAQs

A casual dinner with my sister reminded me of one of her endearing (and enduring) traits—a penchant­ for sweets. You’d hardly believe it given her small frame, but she readily fesses up that she “eats dinner to get to dessert.”

If there’s one “sweet” thing RTB president Hugh Ross can’t get enough of, it’s Q&A. In fact, the staff often joke that he does talks to get to the Q&A. Of all the questions asked, there are a few staples that Hugh and the other scholars (as well as staff) have come to anticipate.

Here is just a sampling of some of the tasty questions and our responses. Hopefully they will whet your appetite enough to encourage you to grab a second helping and check out the additional resources.

What is RTB’s view on the creation “days” in Genesis?

There are four literal interpretations for the Hebrew word for “day” (yom): part of the daylight hours, all of the daylight hours, 24 hours, or a long but finite period of time. RTB posits that, when considering all biblical creation accounts, the case for long but finite creation days best fits the biblical and scientific evidence.

RTB Topic page: Biblical Evidence for an Old Earth

Article: “The Major Biblical Creation Texts/Creation Accounts”

Take Two post: “Let There Be Light!”

What is RTB’s position on the big bang?

Scientists say the universe had a beginning, is stretching, and will eventually come to an end. Verses like Genesis 1:1–2, Job 9:8, and 2 Peter 3:10 preempted scientific discovery of these properties by nearly two thousand years. RTB considers the big bang “one of the most potent evidences for the existence of God,” specifically the God of the Bible.

RTB Topic page: Big Bang

Article: “Is the Big Bang Biblical?”

Take Two post: “Nacho Average Discovery”

Is belief in an old earth the same as belief in evolution?

RTB scholars believe that God miraculously intervened millions, possibly even billions, of times throughout the history of the universe not only to prepare it for life but also to create each and every new species of life on Earth. Our theistic evolutionist friends would say God initially created and then guided (in some sense) the process through biological evolution to generate life’s history. They would therefore take a nonliteral view of the creation narrative.

RTB 101 page: Theistic Evolution

Article: “Thinking about Theistic Evolution”

Take Two post: “Checking Out the Menu”

What about Adam and Eve?

RTB firmly believes that God supernaturally intervened to create the first human beings (historical Adam and Eve) and endowed them with His image. RTB views hominids and similar creatures (primates) as distinct from humans and not made in God’s image.

RTB 101 page: Hominids; Historical Adam

Straight Thinking podcast: “Did Adam & Eve Really Exist? Jack Collins Interview Parts 1, 2, 3, 4”

Take Two post: “Knuckle Walking to Knuckle Sandwiches”

What is RTB’s position on animal death before the Fall?

Romans 5:12 is often cited as support for the view that no animal death occurred before Adam sinned. Yet a careful examination of the text shows that Adam’s sin introduced death to all humans. RTB views carnivorous activity not as the direct result of sin but as a part of God’s original creation (which is not His ultimate creation) and an example of His provision.

RTB Topic page: Animal Death before Adam

I Didn’t Know That! podcast: “We’re All Related?,Falling Animals and Let’s All Get Along”

Take Two post: “Red in Tooth and Claw”

So…where do dinosaurs fit in all of this?

Some Christians interpret the “behemoth” and “leviathan” mentioned in Job 40–41 as referring to dinosaurs. This view assumes that humanity lived at the same time as dinosaurs. RTB maintains that dinosaurs went extinct long before humanity entered the scene. RTB posits that the behemoth and leviathan mentioned in Job most likely refer to the hippopotamus and crocodile, respectively.

RTB 101 page: Dinosaurs

Article: “RTB’s Position on Dinosaurs”

Take Two post: “Past Watchful Dragons”

——-

These are just a few of the many questions brought to the science-faith table. While they may not be as appetizing as the white chocolate cranberry cookies my sister always serves, those curious about God’s Word (Scripture) and God’s world (nature) hunger for answers. And Hugh and the crew are happy to serve up a reply.

Do you have a science-faith question you’d like answered? Send it to ask@reasons.org and it might get on the air. But be sure to skim the I Didn’t Know That! archives to find out if the scholars have already dished out a response.

– Sandra

 

Past Watchful Dragons

This month’s Chinese New Year celebrations will usher in 2012 as the year of the dragon. These legendary beasties have been a favorite fairytale and mythology staple for eons. But are dragons really just figments of our imaginations? Or are they evidence of ancient humans’ encounters with living dinosaurs?

The timing of dinosaurs’ existence is a point of disagreement between young- and old-earth creationists. Based on their interpretation of the Genesis creation days as 24 hours long and their belief that animals did not die before Adam’s fall, young-earth creationists insist that dinosaurs and humans must have coexisted for a time. Worldwide dragon lore—including biblical references to dragons, leviathans, and behemoths—is used as support of this coexistence. (See Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research for details on the young-earth perspective.)

However, scientific research does not support the idea of a dinosaur-human coexistence. Paleontologists estimate that the last wave of dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago—well before humans, and even most mammals, showed up. Furthermore, dinosaur fossils were not recognized for what they really were until the 1800s, making dinosaurs a relatively modern discovery.

Based on these two facts, Reasons To Believe believes it unlikely that the biblical authors make any mention of dinosaurs whatsoever. How, then, do we reconcile the biblical references to behemoths, leviathans, and dragons with the scientific and historic data?

• Passages in the book of Job describing the behemoth and leviathan are likely referring to the hippopotamus and crocodile, respectively. This is not a new interpretation. As RTB founder Hugh Ross points out in his book Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job, prior to the nineteenth-century discovery of dinosaurs most Bible scholars accepted the hippo and croc interpretation. (Even some more recent Bible versions include this view in their footnotes.)

 

• In English Bibles, the word “dragon” appears most notably in Revelation 12–13 and usually refers to Satan. (Other instances of use vary from translation to translation.) In a March 2011 episode of I Didn’t Know That!, RTB scholars Fuz Rana and Dave Rogstad suggest that—given the fact that Revelation’s author, John, was totally ignorant of dinosaurs—it’s more probable that he drew upon well-known mythological imagery to help his readers grasp the strange visions he described than that he referred to a real animal.

So how did we think up dragons? Inspiration for the Chinese dragon did indeed come from dinosaurs—fossilized bones, that is. Whale bones may have also contributed to the stories. Historians believe other reptiles—like the Nile crocodile, spitting cobras, and monitor lizards—also influenced dragon lore.

Thinking about God’s colorful description of the terrifying leviathan in Job 41, it doesn’t surprise me that such relatively modern beasts inspired tall tales and epic mythologies. I can just picture the campfire stories now…

— Maureen

Resources: It’s an undeniable fact that dinosaurs fascinate us. We’ve dedicated an RTB 101 page to helping people understand these monstrous animals and their place in God’s creation.

 

Filing for Spiritual Chapter 11 Protection

Every other day it seems news breaks about another business going belly up and filing for bankruptcy. Earlier this week Hostess became the latest company to bite the cream-filled dust.

Businesses or individuals drowning in debt are grateful for the relief. Yet others might say it is unjust for the financially irresponsible to have debts pardoned while the rest of us whittle away at our own mountain of debt. Perseverance in hopes of paying off debt seems the nobler choice to giving up altogether and asking for help.

The same might be said about perspectives on sin and salvation. Assuming first that sin is acknowledged as a problem (some perspectives wouldn’t go that far), the common thought is that so long as we are generally good, we can boast (but not too much) in our ability to stay “in the black.” Should we avoid racking up exorbitant amounts of sin, then surely we would be ushered into heaven when our days on Earth are over.

According to philosopher and theologian Kenneth Samples, this notion that good people go to heaven and only the truly evil people go to hell is extremely popular. The trouble is, one person might define “good” as simply not causing harm to others while another defines it as a selfless act for another’s benefit.

If there isn’t agreement on how to measure goodness, then how can we be assured of our standing with God?

Christianity says scratch that—no one is good enough. Just as for those drowning in financial debt, the only solution is to claim spiritual bankruptcy.

Salvation through grace, not by works, is just one of the “dangerous ideas” discussed in Kenneth Samples’ latest book, 7 Truths that Changed the World (release date: May 2012). When it comes to salvation, he points out, Christianity alone challenges the assumption that we are capable of clawing our way out of the spiritual red:

The natural human religious instinct is to believe that God accepts people on the basis of their own good works. Thus, historic Christianity has challenged all people to think in a radically different way about how they find acceptance before God.

The solution isn’t to work harder in hopes of willing sin out of our lives. The solution starts with declaring total depravity. The doctrine of total depravity, as Ken has explained, means that humans, though not wholly evil, are “pervasively sinful” and therefore incapable of earning God’s favor on their own. The good news is that Christ’s death on the cross provides much-needed relief and puts those who trust in His goodness in good standing. Ken adds,

Christians can be comforted that no matter how great their sin, God’s gracious gift of salvation in Christ’s atoning death is both complete and permanent.

Not only that, but our “goodness” deficit is filled in what theologians call the Great Exchange. According to 2 Corinthians 5:21, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

–Sandra

 

Resources:

Here are a few helpful articles by Ken Samples on some of Christianity’s dangerous ideas:

“Christianity’s Dangerous Ideas“

“Thinking about the Incarnation: The Divine Word Became Flesh“

“What Makes the Christian God Unique?“

“If Christ Had Not Been Raised: Reasoning through the Resurrection“

“Christ’s Cross: Its Fourfold Distinctive Meaning“

“On Becoming a Christian“

 

Animals in the Spotlight

In early elementary school I developed distaste for reading. To remedy the situation, my parents bought books suited to my interests—principally, animals. I willingly devoured Zoobooks magazines, curled up with girl-and-her-horse novels, and thumbed through a well-loved copy of a mammal encyclopedia. Although my literary tastes

Me and my husband with a trio of feathered friends.

expanded over the years, even today few things will catch my attention faster than an animal.

And it seems the animal kingdom has been garnering some attention in popular science news as well.

Over the last week or two, RTB scholars Fuz Rana and Hugh Ross have hopped into the recording studio several times to record comments on recent discoveries involving elephant toes, beaver dams, and a new shark species.

• Elephants’ Sixth “Toe”: For centuries, elephants’ extra digit puzzled scientists. Now extensive research shows that the toe first appeared about 40 million years ago when elephantine animals began growing in size and transitioning to land-based habitats. The question is does this finding support evolution or creation?

Fuz weighed in on this discussion on the December 29, 2011 episode of Science News Flash (SNF). He points out that similar extra digits appear in pandas and moles—leading to the conclusion that this is yet another example of convergence, the independent and repetitious appearance of shared characteristics among unrelated organisms.

We would not expect evolution, as a random, unguided process, to be capable of reproducing designs. Yet convergence abounds in nature (echolocation in dolphins and bats is another prominent example). Such instances, Fuz says, better fit within a creation model, where an intelligent Creator makes repeated used of His designs as would a human engineer.

• Busy Beavers: It might surprise people to learn how many ways beavers have impacted life in North America. It certainly astounded me when I listened to Hugh’s December 30, 2011 SNF episode. Thanks to ground-penetrating radar readings from orbiting satellites, researchers discovered that the once-abundant beaver dams throughout North America exerted substantial influence over subterranean sediment buildups.

That’s a pretty big impact by itself, but Hugh takes beavers’ importance a step or two further. As a Canadian, he has a special appreciation for the way the beaver fur trade supported his home country’s early economy. However, as an animal lover, Hugh notes that furriers definitely overhunted beavers to the detriment of Canada and America’s wetland ecosystems. He explains that beavers are vital to removing nitrogen from water. Too much nitrogen creates dead spaces where fish cannot flourish. Areas like Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico currently face nitrogen’s negative effects. Looks like a restoration of beaver populations may be in order!

• New Shark on the Block: Say “hybrid” and most people probably think “Prius.” But nature is not without hybrids of its own. Recent research revealed the unexpected existence of a new shark. Hybrid animals are not unheard of (think mules or, if you’re Napoleon Dynamite, ligers)—but this cross between common blacktip and Australian blacktip sharks stands out. Not only is it the first known shark hybrid, it’s also fertile and shows signs of being more robust than its progenitors. Scientists suspect changing climate conditions may be responsible for this development.

The animal is being touted as “evolution in action”—and it is. As Fuz points out on the first SNF of 2012, this shark hybrid is an example of microevolution. Through adaptation and speciation, organisms adjust to changing environments and new challenges in order to survive. The peppered moth and Darwin’s famous Galapagos finches are textbook examples.

So do these types of evolution tip the scales in favor of naturalism? Hardly. Fuz notes that there is a big difference between microevolution and the theory that mindless evolution has the creative capacity to produce radically different animals from previous creatures. Discoveries like the hybrid shark make better sense if a Creator endowed His creations with the ability to adapt.

From a layperson’s perspective, it seems a stretch to assume that relatively small adjustments (microevolution), like the elephant’s sixth toe and the hybrid shark, automatically implies large-scale adjustments (macroevolution), like dinosaurs evolving into birds or ape-like creatures into human beings.

When God confronts Job, He points to various animals as examples of His power and glory. Indeed, a visit to the zoo, or even a moment with my pet rabbit, always puts me in awe of God. I can see why Paul wrote in Romans that no man is without excuse because the multifaceted natural world so clearly testifies to God’s existence and His character.

— Maureen

Resources: Are you like me and can’t get enough of animals? Check out Hugh’s latest book, Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job, for an intriguing look at how animals point us toward our mutual Creator.

 

 

 

Christmas Thoughts from Take Two

The Most Peculiar Gift

It was Christmas morning and my godparents’ living room was filled to capacity with kids, a sea of crumpled up wrapping paper, and sparkling new toys. I was a contemplative teenager with nothing left to open (it didn’t take long to open gift c

 

ard envelopes); so I sat back and, for the first time, beheld the joy that spreads across children’s faces as they

 

unwrap presents. The view was breathtaking.

 

Shortly thereafter I received another gift that was, by most standards, peculiar: a pair of black leg warmers. That was many years ago, but I still cherish that memory (and those legwarmers from my Grams). As odd as it may have been to gift legwarmers, they were precisely what I needed to save my shins from the stress of rigorous dancing. And it told me that my Grams knew me and what I needed and cared enough to provide it.

Hopefully it’s not too much of a stretch to see why her gift reminds me of another peculiar gift, that of a babe in a manger. Michael Nortons writes that “God surprises us” through the Incarnation, “and his name is Jesus.” Kenneth Samples adds, “It is unique to Christianity to discover a God who takes the initiative in becoming flesh in order to redeem sinful human beings.”

It’s this entirely unexpected but much-needed gift that we celebrate each Christmas and every day. That God knows us and what we need (redemption) and cared enough to provide it by coming in the flesh and completing his work on the cross.

This Christmas, may you experience—and share—the joy from the unexpected gift of Jesus.

–Sandra

_______________________________________________________________________________

Two People I Want to Meet in Heaven

When I think of important biblical figures—outside of Jesus—my mind is often drawn to leaders like King David or Queen Esther or the Apostle Paul. These people accomplished great things and some of them even held royal positions. But if you were to ask me who would be first on my list for a heavenly latte and chat, I’d have to say Mary and Joseph.

They were a pair of poor nobodies, living in inconsequential Nazareth. Yet they played pivotal roles in God’s plan of redemption. Their willingness to humbly serve the Lord’s purpose had a lasting impact on the world and also says a lot about their character.

Joseph doesn’t have any “lines” in Scripture, but his obedience astounds me. Every time an angel appears and commands Joseph to do something, he does it. Would I trust God enough to be so faithful?

Mary took a huge risk in accepting God’s calling. Who would believe her that an angel told her she would be the Messiah’s mother? She was also present at Jesus’ crucifixion and watched her boy die a horrific death. Can you imagine her heartbreak?

Throughout her experiences, “Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart.” This contemplativeness is my favorite thing about Mary. In the midst of the hectic schedules, let’s do a little treasuring up of our own and take a quiet moment to ponder God’s great generosity in sending that little baby to Mary and Joseph.

— Maureen

MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM TAKE TWO!

 

What Was the Christmas Star?

A couple of weeks ago Take Two discussed 5 common myths about Christmas. Last week, we looked at the significance of the wise men. This week, we glimpse at another key “figure” in the Christmas story—the star of Bethlehem.

Various theories and perspectives abound over what it was that led the wise men to the Christ child. So how does one find clarity in the haze of varied viewpoints? Here’s where having access to astronomers comes in handy. (It comes in handy other times, too.)

Astronomer Hugh Ross explains that the word translated as “star” in Matthew 2 could mean any kind of heavenly body: a star, planet, galaxy, meteor, comet, asteroid, shooting star. It is in the singular, so it’s referring to a single object in the sky. Also, a lot of time had passed between the star’s first and second appearance—something like 15–30 months, Hugh suggests. Finally, the “star” had to be spectacular enough to set the Magi in motion yet not too spectacular as to be noticeable by the average observer or by astronomers and astrologers in Egypt, Greece, India, and China. Hugh explains,

King Herod and the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem seemed oblivious to the star (Matthew 2:1–3). The shepherds outside of Bethlehem “keeping watch over their flocks at night” on the eve of the Messiah’s birth made no note of any astonishingly brilliant star (Luke 2:8–20).

In “What was the Christmas star?” Hugh takes a look at the popular explanations through the lens of science to see which best fits the criteria for the Christmas star.

The star must be

1. A single object
2. Rare in its occurrence
3. Yet not so spectacular as to be obvious to all
4. Able to appear, disappear, and reappear in the same place

 

The comet hypothesis

Comets are fairly common and would not garner special attention from the careful observer. Unusual comets would have been well-documented by Chinese, Indian, Egyptian, and Greek astronomers. Yet there’s no record of an unusual comet having occurred at the estimated time of Christ’s birth. Moreover, though a comet can orbit the Sun, it would not reappear in the same place and form.

The supernova hypothesis

A supernova event would be so spectacular as to catch the attention of even the casual observer, yet again there is no record of such an event occurring at the time of Christ’s birth. Moreover, a star could not “go supernova” twice—it’s one and done—so it would not have reappeared.

The conjunction hypothesis

Conjunctions, whether between two planets or a planet and star, are also fairly common. Any conjunction that may have occurred could well have been uncommon enough to motivate the Magi to begin their journey. The conjunction hypothesis that has received much attention recently (via Rick Larson’s popular DVD, The Star of Bethlehem) points to encounters between Jupiter and Venus in 2 and 3 BC and between Jupiter and Regulus (a star) in that same time period. These conjunctions fail to meet the first criterion because each involved two objects, and Matthew 2 uses aster in the singular. More importantly, these conjunctions occurred after Herod died, and we know from Matthew’s account that Herod was still alive when Christ was born.

So if the Christmas star wasn’t a comet, supernova, or conjunction, then what was it? Hugh leans toward the idea that it was a recurring nova: a single object, sufficiently rare yet not too spectacular, and it appears, disappears (after initial explosion), then reappears (second explosion) 1–2 years later. Yet he stresses that this is only one plausible explanation; no one can claim to have positive proof.

What’s important is that these wise men appear to have paid careful attention to Daniel’s prophecy (9:24–27) of the coming Messiah and were ready to journey at all cost when the time came. What do you think?

 

–Sandra

 

Resources:

For a collection of useful articles, audio messages, and video clips (including RTB’s response to The Star of Bethlehem DVD), check out http://www.reasons.org/christmasstar.

 

We Three Kings

One Christmastime, Dad surprised the family with a new Nativity scene. The set featured a stylized cherry-wood stable and a host of beautiful porcelain figurines. There was the angel with golden wings and a trumpet held aloft, Mary clad in lavender and blue as she kneeled over Baby Jesus, surrounded by animals galore.

But my favorites were the three wise men. It wasn’t very theological of me, but I couldn’t help thinking they were the loveliest of the bunch, dressed in vibrant robes and exotic headdresses. Even their camel was decked out with colorful tassels.

Perhaps it has to do with efforts to dispel myths about the Magi and the star they followed (I know my pastor gets annoyed by these misconceptions), but I don’t actually hear much about these guys in Christmas sermons. I do hear about the shepherds. They were a lowly group—they probably smelled terrible and likely didn’t receive extensive educations. The Magi were the exact opposite: wealthy, educated, and foreign. No doubt they were among the intellectual elites of their culture. I think we miss out on some important insights when we overlook the Magi.

Paying Attention

The story of the Magi says something about the value of intellectual pursuits to personal faith. In an article on the Christmas star, RTB astronomer Hugh Ross notes that it’s likely the Magi were influenced by the teachings of Daniel, the only Old Testament prophet to predict the timing of the Messiah’s arrival.

So these guys were paying attention when the “star” appeared. Hugh points out that the Christmas star is not recorded anywhere outside the Bible—it was just noticeable enough to alert the wise men, but no one else it seems. No one else was paying attention.

According to Matthew 2, when the wise men showed up in Jerusalem, they caused quite a stir by asking, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

Based on the reactions of King Herod and his people, it seems that this information took everyone by surprise even though they had access to all the Messianic prophecies within their own Scriptures. The wise men were Gentiles, yet they were prepared, and they knew what they were looking for. They had done their homework.

Fully Prepared

To me, the Magi serve as a subtle reminder to “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’” It’s a struggle sometimes to love God as Jesus commanded and as the wise men demonstrated. The loving-God-with-all-our-minds part seems especially neglected. We overemphasize emotional intimacy in our worship services or poke fun at those stodgy old theologians or just don’t bother studying Scripture for more than a “verse of the day.” I say “we” because I struggle with this all the time. But, as the story of the Magi illustrates, the rewards of preparing ourselves intellectually are ample.

Hugh concludes his Christmas star article,

What strikes me as the most important point of the story is its illustration of the hope the magi placed in the promised Messiah. When I consider the magnitude of their commitment of time, energy, and treasure to seeking him out in order to bow before him, I pray that my response and yours will match theirs.

As we continue moving forward into the twenty-first century, with all its cultural challenges, I hope with Hugh that we will be more and more like the wise men: attentive and prepared and eager to respond when God calls on us.

— Maureen

Resources: Check out RTB’s Christmas star page for blogs, podcasts, and video clips addressing this mysterious celestial phenomenon.

 

Top 5 Common Christmas Myths

Christmastime is here! For many of us, the holiday brings happiness and cheer and longstanding traditions. One that my family and neighbors participated in when I was a kid was Las Posadas (the inn). Basically a procession of “pilgrims” (neighborhood families) goes house to house asking for lodging. The residents refuse (as planned) and the journey continues until the “innkeeper” takes them in. This festivity serves as a reenactment of Mary and Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem. Plus it comes with plenty of singing, tamale eating, and piñata breaking!

Of course, we all know Mary and Joseph didn’t eat tamales or break piñatas, but it turns out there are other elements in this “reenactment” of the nativity (and in many Christmas carols, for that matter) that may not have been part of the real Christmas narrative.

Theology Mom Krista Bontrager helps explain a few of these common myths about Christmas and how to “detox ourselves” from embellishing on a perfectly good story.

Krista, many of us were taught that Jesus was born in a stable because “there was no room in the inn.” Was He born in a stable?

Probably not. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Joseph went from home to home looking for a place to stay. That story stems from many translations’ use of the word “inn” in Luke 2:7. From that, we extrapolate a whole slew of events—the innkeeper, innkeeper’s wife, a No Vacancy sign flashing. The problem is that the word used in Luke 2 (kataluma) is not the word for inn—that’s a bad English translation. The word is better translated as “upper room” or “guest room.” In fact, the 2011 translation of NIV makes that correction. Luke 22:11 also uses kataluma to describe the guest room where the last supper took place. In contrast, pandocheion (correctly translated as “inn”) appears in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Where was Jesus born, then, if not in a stable?

It’s much more likely He was born in a home. Mary and Joseph were going to their ancestral home, which means they had extended family there. It’s almost inconceivable that their family would not have taken them in considering the cultural practices of that time.

So if Jesus was born in a home, why does the Bible say He was placed in a manger?

That’s an important detail because it tells us what part of the house they were in. In those days, homes had an upper level where the family would sleep and a lower level where animals were kept at night for the animals’ protection and to provide heat. It seems that Jesus was born in that lower level where the animals were kept. And he was placed in a manger (feed trough) because they make for a great little cradle. In fact it reminds me of the makeshift bed my husband and I once made for our daughter when we stayed overnight at a hotel.

What about some of the characters often suggested as being present at Christ’s birth?

The shepherds were present, but the three wise men were not. Matthew’s account apparently takes place during a different time frame than Luke’s. One clue is that the Greek word Matthew used to describe Jesus is a paidion, which can mean anything from an infant to a toddler. This range of definitions would be consistent with King Herod killing all the Jewish  boys ages two and under (Matthew 2). This would mean that Jesus was probably two or younger when He was visited by the wise men.

Okay, so we’ve eliminated the stable and the wise men from the Nativity. What about the date? Was Jesus born on December 25?

Maybe. The standard story is that December 25 was adopted after Constantine’s conversion to Christianity because it was on a pagan holiday and the winter solstice. Christians then co-opted the holiday and Christianized it. What’s interesting is that the early church put almost no emphasis on celebrating the birth of Christ. They were much more concerned with the resurrection. It’s not until AD 200 where possible dates are mentioned for the celebrating of Christ’s birth. By about AD 300 there were two dates: December 25 (for the west) and January 6 (for the east). There does seem to be a tradition of December 25 long before Constantine’s conversion, so that’s why I say maybe. This article from the Biblical Archaeology Review gives a good summary of “How December 25 Became Christmas.”

So what would you like to say to those who might (facetiously) say this information ruins Christmas for them, or at least shakes up some sentimental traditions?

I think the shepherds are a definite key to Luke’s story. Shepherds were at the bottom of the social ladder, down there with the eunuchs in how they were perceived by their fellow Jews. Having handled animal feces and carcasses, they were dirty and considered ceremonially unclean. In order to worship in the temple, they would have to go through multiple days of cleaning rituals. Yet the Angel tells the shepherds to run to Bethlehem and see the Savior. The Angel doesn’t say “oh, and on your way you might want to get cleaned up first.” No, the shepherds go right there and see God Incarnate. Then they spread the word that Jesus had been born. God chose people at the bottom of the social ladder to be the first evangelists. That, to me, is Luke’s point. It’s the shepherds’ ability to run to the Savior without any ritual or cleaning. This is a Savior for them—these dirty people. It’s the same for the wise men. They were Gentiles, but Christ is a Savior for them, too. They go to Bethlehem and bow down to worship God Incarnate. It’s the very beginnings of the revolution that Jesus will bring. HE is now the temple, the sacrifice, the Great High Priest, the replacement for all of the things the Old Testament foreshadowed.

***

This definitely puts the nativity story into its proper cultural and biblical context, Krista! Its significance isn’t in the stable or in the kindness of the innkeepers or in the timing of the wise men’s visit. The true meaning of Christmas is that God came in the flesh as Jesus Christ to be a Savior for all people and accessible to all people.

Want to hear more from Krista? Check out her Take Two guest post on “Reconsidering the James Ossuary.” And don’t forget to check out her website, Theology Mom, and blog, Old Earth Creationism. She plans to post Christmas-related videos soon! Here’s her post on “Why We Shouldn’t Get Our Theology from the Nativity.”

– Sandra

 

Top 10 Science-Faith Conversation Starters

Tens of thousands of people are affected every day by this latest epidemic: the ironic hipster mustache. What may have begun as nothing more than a hairy badge for hipsters has transformed into a movement (fittingly called Movember) to “change the face of men’s health.” And it serves as a fine example of giving purpose to a trivial trend.

Eric's glorious 'stache

Another (not-so-trivial) trend, at least among believers, is a peripheral view of science and theology. Hugh reported that his recent university debate was more heavily attended by atheists despite the existence of several Christian groups on campus. The groups seemed “scared to engage” in the words of one attendee. Yet, in the groups’ fear, they missed a key opportunity to hear reasons why this conversation is so important, not only for evangelism but also for renewed confidence in who their Creator and Savior is.

The Christian groups’ absence highlighted a common tendency to shy away from science-faith discussion. So, too, did an article featured in Relevant titled “10 reasons why Christians should engage in the science-and-theology dialogue.” There are clear reasons to engage in this conversation, but some of us need help just knowing where to begin. So for our Thanksgiving special, Take Two offers our top 10 science-faith conversation starters.

1. Did you know the big bang was “discovered” long ago in the pages of the Bible? This cosmic beginning points to a God who cares so deeply for humanity that He created a cosmos for the benefit of humanity. (See “Nacho Average Discovery”)

2. It can be difficult to envision how God can be simultaneously near us and beyond us. But mathematics has found a way to illustrate this reality. This illustration helps demonstrate God’s character as all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present Caretaker. (See “Turtles and Transdimensionality”)

3. A full moon on a cloudless night is breathtaking. But did you know the moon formed as a result of a collision? God used this “beautiful disaster” to prepare the earth for life—specifically humanity. (See “A Stark Beauty”)

4. Did you know humans are the only creatures with an intrinsic ability to dance? This type of creative behavior is reflective of beings who are endowed with the image of God. (See “Let’s Dance”)

5. Sure, the Bible says we are created in God’s image. But did you know the fossil record reveals a sudden surge of creativity alongside the appearance of modern humans? This co-appearance of humans and culture stands in stark contrast with evolutionary models. (See “A Song for You”)

6. Rather than producing a clear evolutionary tree, the fossil record looks more like blades of grass, consistent with biblical creation. Events like the Cambrian explosion display hallmarks of a Creator’s involvement, such as sudden speciation and extinction events—sounds like Psalm 104:27–30. (See “A Long Time Ago in Our Very Own Galaxy…”)

7. Did you know significant archaeological discoveries support the Bible’s historic accuracy? Findings, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, increase confidence in the Bible’s reliability and inerrancy. (See “Sifting Fact from Fiction in Biblical Archaeology”)

8. Based on its own mechanisms, the evolutionary process can’t replicate its results. But did you know the natural world is replete with repetitious designs among unrelated organisms? Features like echolocation in bats and dolphins display convergence, a phenomenon that fits better within the biblical explanation for life. (See “Repeat Performance”)

9. Getting pelted with asteroids isn’t high on anyone’s list—but research shows an upside to such bombardments. Precisely engineered collision events during Earth’s early years helped path the way for life to survive and thrive on this little blue planet. (See “Blockbusters and Bombardments”)

10. At first, their work sounds like a scene from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, but synthetic biologists’ attempts to create artificial life are something to be thankful for. In addition to opening possibilities for exciting breakthroughs, the efforts to generate life in the lab vividly demonstrate that “even the simplest life-form cannot arise without the involvement of an intelligent, intentional agent.” (See “Fearfully and Wonderfully Made: Creating Life in the Lab”)

The hope here on Take Two is to provide accessible apologetics arguments—and perhaps help start a new trend of Christians engaging in science and theology discussions. Perhaps these conversation starters can be passed around the table along with the gravy this Thanksgiving.

Speaking of the holiday, we have a few favorite Turkey Day “trends” of our own. Maureen and her husband spend the holiday catching up with his family around the turkey. (And this year they’re hoping to talk everyone into a group trip to the cinema for the new Muppets movie.) Sandra and her crew split their holiday, spending half of the day serving Thanksgiving Dinner-in-the-Park and the other half with extended family.

What are some of your favorite Thanksgiving traditions?

 

– Maureen and Sandra

 

Scientific Fusion

My husband and I love watching Iron Chef America, the Food Network show where top-notch chefs go toe-to-toe in an hour-long culinary battle. It’s particularly fascinating to watch the competitors deal with a “secret ingredient” that forces them to think outside the box of their expertise. A French-trained chef might play with Asian flavors or an Italian-trained chef might find inspiration in the foods of the American Southwest. The results are intriguing cross-cultural cuisine fusions.

Fusion (or integration) is also a vital part of building a well-rounded and solid position in the realm of science-faith debates. Like the cooks competing on Iron Chef America, scientists often focus on highly specialized fields. This is good for research, but not so helpful when taken out of the laboratory and into the science-faith arena. Without knowledge of other disciplines, evolution proponents can end up building lopsided cases for their worldview.

In his book A World of Difference, philosopher Kenneth Samples notes that, among other things, a solid worldview must have explanatory power and scope. He writes, “An adequate belief system explains a broad range of data.” Within the science-faith discussion, a worldview needs to account for the data from myriad disciplines, not just biology.

Biochemist Patricia Fanning realized the importance of integrating across fields of study, both for her own worldview and for others’. She explained in a personal conversation:

I never believed in evolution even before getting to know RTB. But I didn’t have a sound intellectual basis for that feeling—now I do. If you want to actually understand the arguments for or against evolution, you have to go across scientific disciplines. The theory of evolution has to fit with all the sciences.

For example, Patricia believes it’s helpful for biology students, particularly those focusing on evolution, to be acquainted with planet and solar system formation. Why? Our own solar system’s formation impacted (literally) Earth’s initial conditions, making them radically different from the current state. A good understanding of the origin of life requires knowledge of these initial conditions.

But evolutionists aren’t the only ones who need to integrate. Viable creation models must also cover a “broad range of data.” RTB founder Hugh Ross applies constructive integration to Scripture as well as science. Genesis doesn’t have a corner on creation accounts; there are over 20 creation texts scattered throughout the Bible. That’s why Hugh’s latest book focuses on Job.

This is a lot of stuff to take into consideration when evaluating a stance on evolution and creation. But I think a good worldview needs to be like a good chef. Great cooks continue to stretch and grow their abilities, with openness to challenges and a willingness to adapt and master new techniques. That’s how they stay at the top of their game. Similarly, a good worldview needs room to adjust, grow, and integrate.

— Maureen

Resources: Need help evaluating your worldview? Check out Ken’s book A World of Difference for nine ways to test your thinking.