Dating Ancient Limestone in Ireland

In County Clare, Ireland, one of the main sight-seeing destinations is the Burren, a stretch of terrain often described as “lunar” in appearance. The karst landscape features expansive limestone pavements crisscrossed by cracks known as “grikes” (as though raked by a giant attempting to farm) and solemn portal tombs such as the Neolithic Poulnabrone Dolmen.

When I visited the Burren, I sensed a sort of ancientness hanging over the region and felt humbled by the history saturating the very stones I stood on. Information plaques posted near the Poulnabrone Dolmen told me this obscure burial site is possibly older than both Stonehenge and the Pyramids of Egypt. But oldest by far is the limestone itself, coming in at an impressive 340 million years old.

Scientists determine the date for the Burren and its artifacts using a technique called radiometric dating. And yet the reliability of

Yours truly in front of the Poulnabrone Dolmen

this technique is a source of debate among Christian creationists. While old-earth proponents accept radiometric dating as valid, young-earth supporters doubt its validity, often citing examples of wildly inaccurate results in support of their skepticism. I once had a fellow believer tell me these methods had been proven unreliable by a scientist who got a reading of thousands of years when he tested radiometric dating on a live snail.

The Institute of Creation Research even published a collection of papers documenting eight years work on the Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth (RATE) project. Their conclusions challenged radiometric dating results and supported the young-earth view. (See here for a review of the study by Randy Isaac, executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation.)

RTB astronomer Hugh Ross addresses challenges to radiometric dating in his book A Matter of Days. He writes,

Just as thermometers, barometers, and radar all have specific applications and limits, so too do the more than 40 different radiometric decay dating methods….

Supposed ‘evidence’ against the reliability of radiometric dating focuses on the method’s ‘flaws’ or inaccuracies when applied outside its limitations….

When used outside of its intended purposes or limitations, any dating technique can produce incorrect and unreliable results. When used within its intended purposes and limitations, radiometric dating can and does serve as a reliable and trustworthy tool…

Hugh lists three requirements for obtaining accurate radiometric dating results.

1. Proximity of the actual date to the (measureable) half-life of the radiometric chronometer (for example, carbon-14 dating is most reliable for organic material between 900–35,000 years old)
2. Adequate sample size
3. Adequate sample purity

With these three requirements in mind, it seems misuse of the technique renders tests on things like live snails irrelevant.

Thinking back on my experience at the Burren reminds me of God’s challenge to Job: “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.” The Burren’s human history, though fascinating and ancient, pales in comparison to the awesome power and creative abilities of the eternal Designer of the very old universe.

— Maureen

Resources: Check out these RTB resources for more information on radiometric dating.

• A Matter of Days (book) by Hugh Ross
• I Didn’t Know That! (podcast) February 8, 2011 and July 1, 2010 episodes
• “The Dynamics of Dating” (article) by Dr. Roger C. Wiens
• “Dating Methods that Work” (blog) by Sandra Dimas

 

A Look at 10 (or so) Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses

Most people are familiar with John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” It’s the go-to verse for budding evangelists, the bottom rim of In–N-Out cups, and Tim Tebow’s face. But not every verse can be plucked from the Bible to stand well (and be properly understood) on its own.

In a five-part series, philosopher-theologian Kenneth Samples, physicist and long-time student of the Scripture Dave Rogstad, and Theology Mom Krista Bontrager take a look at a “Top 10 (or so) Misunderstood Bible Verses.”

Part 1 begins with general principles to keep in mind when interpreting Scripture:

Understand the author’s intent. “Meaning is grounded in the author’s intent.” So before asking what the verse means to us, consider first what the verse meant to the person who wrote it and the person(s) to whom it was written (or spoken). Consider the historical and cultural context.

Consider the literary genre. Just like we wouldn’t read a comic book in the same way we would an academic paper, it’s important to read Bible books and verse according to their genre.

Think about the overall context. Take a look at the surrounding verses or paragraphs. Pulling an excerpt may not be sufficient to understanding a verse’s significance.

Reflect on the universal and personal application. Only after we have a firm understanding of the author’s intent, literary genre, and overall context can we begin to reflect on the universal and personal application.

With these principles in mind, Samples, Rogstad, and Bontrager dive into the list of misunderstood verses. Here, I offer a synopsis of the podcast series and, hopefully, some food for thought.

Part 2

Thou shalt not kill Exodus 20:13 (KJV)

Other translations read “You shall not murder.” The distinction, as Samples explains, is that killing is to take the life of a human being whereas murder is the intentional taking of a life without just cause, particularly out of malicious motive.

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14

There are two common misunderstandings of this verse. First, that it’s a guarantee of prosperity. Second, that it applies to the reader’s land (for example, those in the US cite this verse for the National Day of Prayer). Yet the context indicates that the Lord is talking about Israel. The team suggests that if there is a general principle, it’s about God’s people. “It has nothing to do with our nation as a whole,” Bontrager explains, “because we [do not live] in a theocracy.”

“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” Jeremiah 29:11

This is a powerful verse, no doubt, that’s often used at Christian graduation ceremonies. But “it has to be understood within a broad biblical context,” Bontrager says. It’s a promise to Israel that they will be able to return to the land, the team explains. It’s not a guarantee that modern Christians won’t suffer.

Part 3

I said, “You are ‘gods’; you are all sons of the Most High. Psalm 82:6

Some might take this verse to mean there are other gods. Compare this verse to what Jesus says in John 10:34–36 and it becomes clear this isn’t the case. The team explains that “gods” is instead referring to those who receive the law.

My son, do not forget my teaching, but keep my commands in your heart, for they will prolong your life many years and bring you peace and prosperity. Proverbs 3:1–2

It’s generally true that following God’s commands will lead to a longer, more peaceful, and therefore more prosperous life. This verse is not a guarantee of such blessings.

Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it. Proverbs 22:6

This verse might serve as motivation for parents to teach their children “the way they should go” (a good thing). But, again, it’s not a guarantee. The team stresses that it’s important to differentiate between a promise (guarantee) and a proverb (general principle).

Part 4

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. Matthew 7:1

Can a person do as they please without being judged by other Christians? No. Elsewhere in the Bible Paul judges false teachers. Yet it doesn’t mean we judge self-righteously or hypocritically, but in a consistently biblical manner. Plus, the verses that follow clarify that judgment begins with one’s self.

And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; ¹⁸ they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well. Mark 16:17–18

Many scholars believe the Gospel of Mark originally ended at verse 8. With this in mind, the team takes the position that there’s no foundation to believe in those practices because they’re not in the original. They add, however, that this verse doesn’t mean every Christian will do these things, but there certainly was that kind of activity in the early church—casting out of demons, speaking in other languages, handling of snakes (e.g., Paul on the Island of Malta). Not that anyone should seek to engage in these activities, but they did occur.

Part 5

As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. 1 John 2:27a

People often cite this verse as support for their decision to not attend church. But the team explains that this verse is about the issue of the anti-Christ. John is warning the church to make sure their doctrine and their belief about Jesus is correct so as not to be fooled by some “new” (distorted) teaching. According to Bontrager, “To say ‘I just need the Holy Spirit’ is a gross misinterpretation of the text.”

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with this person, and they with me. Revelation 3:20

This message of repentance and restoration is directed to the seven churches of Asia Minor. To cite it for evangelistic purposes is using “good doctrine from the wrong passage.”

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isa 9:6

The verse seems to anticipate the coming of Christ. So why would the Son be called Father? Rogstad suggests this verse indicates Christ’s origins are from eternity. Jesus refers to this verse in John 14:9: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”

Before plucking out a verse—be it for evangelism, a Bible study, or face paint for the big game—these basic principles will go a long way toward helping readers go from “passive reading to active learning.”

–Sandra

Resources

Top 10 Misunderstood Bible Verses Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

Doing the Homework: Tips for Deeper Bible Study

What’s on Page 123?

 

Piecing Together the Creation Texts

My family loves solving jigsaw puzzles. We always start by finding the corner pieces and then the edges. With the frame complete, puzzle-building becomes a practice in patience as everyone takes turns examining pieces, studying the image on the box, and trying out different combinations. Slowly, from the mound of seemingly unrelated pieces emerges a clear picture.

Something similar happens when we integrate creation texts from throughout Scripture. If someone asked us to show them the Bible’s creation story, most of us would point to Genesis. But Genesis isn’t the only piece to understanding God’s creative acts or the natural realm.

Mentions of creation appear through the Old and New Testaments. RTB founder Hugh Ross believes that in order to get a more accurate understanding of the biblical creation narrative, it’s necessary to take into account everything the Bible says about this hot topic. That means looking beyond Genesis to see how other books of Scriptures help reveal a clearer picture of creation.

Hugh’s latest book, Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job, does just that. Job is likely the oldest book in the Bible, meaning its teachings on creation would have been known to Moses, author of Genesis, and his audience. Hugh writes:

In many respects, Job serves as an introduction or preface to Genesis. The gaps in the Genesis creation accounts that skeptics love to ridicule are not really gaps at all if the content of Job was familiar to the original recipients of Genesis. Why would Moses need or want to repeat what was already widely understood from Job’s epic poem?

One feature of Job that stands out is the extensive ending monologue delivered by God himself in the last five chapters of the book. It seems obvious God’s direct comments on creation should be taken into consideration.

On the RTB website Hugh provides a list of the major creation texts. There are 22 key passages, besides those in Genesis. In Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job, Hugh explains:

This wealth of creation content makes the Bible unique among the “holy books” of the world’s major religions. This treasure enables readers, through thoughtful integration, to discern from the Bible a reasonably clear, detailed, and unambiguous story of the origin and history of the universe, Earth, and life.

This principle of constructive integration gathers all the appropriate pieces relating to creation and examines them together, helping us develop not just a clearer picture but also a stronger case for biblical creation.

— Maureen

 

Resources: To get a better understanding of God’s creative acts, check out The Bigger on Creation, a Bible study guide by theologian Krista Bontrager.

Hugh outlines RTB’s apologetics method and discusses the interpretive tools we use with science-faith, creation-evolution, and Bible-theology issues in “Interpreting Creation,” a five-part Today’s New Reason to Believe series.

• “Interpreting Creation, Part 1: Apologetics Methods”
• “Interpreting Creation, Part 2: Science-Faith Models”
• “Interpreting Creation, Part 3: The Scientific Method”
• “Interpreting Creation, Part 4: Hermeneutical Principles”
• “Interpreting Creation, Part 5: Hermeneutical Principles Continued”

 

 

 

Understanding Lent

In case you’ve missed the subtle reminders (ads for fish sandwich Fridays and friends’ Facebook posts divulging what they’re giving up), the season of Lent is upon us. Some view the 40ish-days (this is addressed later) before Easter as preparation for celebration of Christ’s resurrection. Others claim it’s a man-made ritual that does little to bring anyone closer to the cross. Those in the middle might make a crack about the fuzz found at the bottom of pockets (lint).

To help bring clarity to a perhaps otherwise fuzzy topic, I connected with philosopher/theologian Kenneth Samples.

Ken, many people consider the observance of Lent as unique to the Roman Catholic Church. Are there other denominations that recognize the season?

These days I think engaging in Lent is much more popular in liturgical traditions: Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Orthodox, and, to some extent, Reformed. The typical Baptist or Assemblies of God or Evangelical Free Church might not have much connection.

Can you explain a few aspects of Lent for those unfamiliar?

When you think about it historically, Easter resides at the heart of all branches of Christendom; Lent is this period between Ash Wednesday and Easter. It commemorates Jesus’ 40 days in the wilderness and serves as a time of anticipation and preparation. It’s a time to think about the investment God made in salvation, the weightiness of it all. We think also about our sins and the need for repentance as well as the luxuries we have and what we can do without. Lent is especially highlighted during Holy Week—from Palm Sunday to Easter Sunday.

What about the biblical significance of the events observed during Lent—Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday?

Ash Wednesday is a time to recognize that we are more sinful than we really know and to anticipate the forgiveness in Christ that came through His death and resurrection. Palm Sunday marks Christ’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem where, less than a week later, he would be crucified. Maundy Thursday recalls the last supper and Christ’s agony. Good Friday is the most solemn day, the day Christ died for our sins. And then we have the great celebration of Easter.

They’re powerful days to think about the Gospel. I see them as having a real biblical basis. As for verses we might point to in support of Ash Wednesday, I think there’s a strong emphasis on a time of repentance. But specific verses? That might be doubtful. It might be more general than specific, such as with the lighting of the candles and special Scripture readings and hymns during the Advent season.

It seems there’s little going on between Ash Wednesday and the next holy day, Palm Sunday.

The length of days represents a connection to Jesus’ fasting for 40 days.

And yet Lent is actually longer than 40 days. I’ve read that this is because Sundays are considered “mini-Easters” and are, therefore, not counted. Is that correct?

I’m not sure except to say that in many of the liturgical churches, Sundays are the Lord’s Day. So every Sunday is, in one sense, another Resurrection Day. It’s like every single week is pointing you to the Resurrection.

What about the criticisms of observing Lent? I’ve heard various arguments; in fact I had a few of my own while growing up in a Catholic home. Usually the concerns are that we ought not be held to a schedule and that we ought to reflect on Christ’s sacrifice at all times, not just on specific days of the year.

It’s important to remember that, as believers, our lives are now caught up in Christ’s life. And the church year recalls and celebrates the events of Christ’s life. Christmas brings us to the Incarnation. The Resurrection is the other side of the church year. I think for far too many Christians who are not part of a liturgical body, all they have when thinking about the Resurrection are Good Friday and Easter Sunday. I like the church year because it brings my everyday life a little closer to Christ’s life.

Some would still argue that giving up chocolate, for instance, does nothing to share in Christ’s suffering.

I don’t think there’s anything petty about giving up something you really enjoy when it’s to say, “Lord, I’m trying to draw all my attention to you.” That’s an individual’s decision. If it’s motivated by grace and out of gratitude for God, I’m not going to tell people how to practice their Lent season.

What about abstaining from meat on Fridays? How does one look at that in light of 1 Corinthians 8 that we can’t win God’s approval by what we eat?

That practice of abstaining from meat is probably unique to Catholicism. I’ve never heard of it in other theological traditions. Yet I think it has to do with the idea of sacrifice. I look favorably on Lent if it’s celebrated in light of and because of grace, not in a legalistic, superstitious way, as if bargaining with God. As for fasting, it’s not easy to fast, but when it’s done, it ought to be done with prayer and out of gratitude.

Some might disagree with your acceptance of a predominantly Catholic practice.

I don’t want to sidestep the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism because we do differ. But I think we sometimes overlook the similarities. As branches of Christendom, we need to learn how to get along with each other.

Reminds me of one of my favorite verses, “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity” (Psalm 133:1).

Yeah. That’s a good verse.

***

What I garnered from reflecting on Lent is that all branches of Christianity are equally connected to the 40 days Christ spent alone and hungry in the wilderness, then His entrance into Jerusalem, the Last Supper, Christ’s agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, His Passion, and His Resurrection. Whether that means filet o’ fish Friday or not depends on the individual. But the body is the body, and it’s intertwined with Christ every day of the (liturgical) year.

What do you think about Lent? Is there something you’ve made a decision to give up or focus on during this season?

– Sandra

Related Articles:

It Is a Good Friday

Three Reasons I Love the Advent Season

If Christ Had Not Been Raised: Reasoning through the Resurrection

 

Science, Faith, Reason, Sporks

In the opening scenes of Disney and Pixar’s Wall-E, the titular robot returns home from a full day of garbage cleanup with a little pile of treasures to add to his extensive collection. Carefully, Wall-E puts each item in its place, but a spork stumps him. Does it go with the spoons or with the forks?

Like Wall-E, many of us like to fit things, people, and ideas into neatly structured categories. In the realm of science-faith issues, there seems to be a tendency to compartmentalize the different “sides” of the discussion. As an example, check out the mission statement for Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins’ foundation:

The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.

It’s daunting for Christians (or any person of faith, really) to engage in the discussion when we’re pigeon-holed in a category with “fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.” Meanwhile, the claims to clear thinking, free thought, rationality, and reason appear to give the naturalistic worldview an edge in the marketplace of ideas.

But are naturalism and all its branches of thought always as reasonable and logical as they’re portrayed to be?

Closer inspection reveals a number of questionable philosophical assumptions undergirding the naturalist worldview. Christian philosophers Kenneth Samples (of Reasons To Believe) and Dr. Paul Copan (of Palm Beach Atlantic University) both do excellent jobs of analyzing naturalism’s assumptions in their respective books—A World of Difference (Samples) and “How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong?” (Copan).

For example, some branches of naturalism hold to scientism, a philosophical concept that exalts scientific knowledge over other forms of knowledge. It is not, however, the same thing as science itself (the study of the natural world). Samples explains:

Scientism maintains a very narrow focus in the types of things it permits as candidates for authentic knowledge and truth….Restricting the possibility of knowledge to the realm of the natural sciences means that religious, philosophical, aesthetic, and moral statements have little or no contribution to make in terms of knowledge and truth.

Copan points out (emphasis original):

The viewpoint of scientism is both arbitrary and self-refuting (and thus incoherent). It demands that all truth-claims have to be scientifically (empirically) verifiable. However, this viewpoint is simply arbitrary. Furthermore, there’s no way to verify scientifically that all truth-claims must be scientifically verifiable. This viewpoint isn’t the result of scientific research (a scientific conclusion); it’s a philosophical assumption.

Not only are such assumptions incoherent, they also place unnecessary and hindering limits on the possible explanations for the nature of the universe and the human experience. Excluding supernatural explanations and theological and philosophical knowledge reveals a prejudice against the nonnatural that is, in Copan’s words, “arbitrary and dogmatic.” Science can’t explain everything. As Samples puts it, “In reality, science alone cannot explain some of the most meaningful human realities of life (for example, values, aesthetics, and meaning).”

It’s no secret that Christianity (indeed, all belief systems) has its fair share of nonsensical and radical devotees. However, it is not fair or even correct to label us all as irrational or ignorant simply because we believe in a supernatural God. Likewise, naturalism is not as uniformly logical and clear-minded as its followers like to claim. Neither group—believers nor skeptics—can be defined by such neat categories.

Perhaps we all belong with the sporks.

— Maureen

Resources: Check out these books by Kenneth Samples and Paul Copan for a little logic and reason from the Christian side of the fence.

• A World of Difference by Samples
• Without a Doubt by Samples
• “How Do You Know You’re Not Wrong?” by Copan
• Is God a Moral Monster? by Copan

Special event: On March 24, people from every facet of the secular movement will converge on Washington DC for a Reason Rally billed as “the largest secular event in world history.” Christian apologetics groups like Ratio Christi and the Apologetics Bloggers Alliance are joining together to represent Christ lovingly and gently in this unique environment. Check out their efforts at www.truereason.org/.

 

Why Do We Have So Much (Cosmic) Stuff?

They say the top three most stressful life events are death, divorce, and….moving. Recent experience tells me why the latter makes the list.

Friends and family stressed their muscles lifting heavy boxes, while I stressed my nerves over the thought of unpacking the seemingly endless piles of stuff. A space heater, several garden gnomes, and a long-forgotten George Foreman Grill flashed back at me like the strobe light from last Halloween. And the message was clear: Do we really need all this stuff?

Others wonder the same thing when taking inventory of the universe.

Astronomers estimate there are somewhere between 200 and 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone. And there are perhaps a hundred billion trillion or a trillion trillion stars in the observable universe. These numbers alone seem ridiculously huge, and yet stars together with galaxies, gas clouds, planets, and burnt out extinct stars account for 0.27 of the cosmic “stuff” in the universe. (Darkness represents the remaining 99.73 percent.)

It’s no wonder, then, that skeptics question why an all-powerful God would create a universe filled with so much stuff. If His goal was to provide humanity with a home, couldn’t He have made do with less?

Let’s consider for a moment the importance of the “stuff” He created.

Here’s what the evidence says.

In Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, astronomer Hugh Ross explains that the amount of cosmic mass must be extraordinarily fine-tuned (one part in 10⁶⁰) for life to exist. In fact, he says, “the degree of fine-tuning is so great that it’s as if right after the universe’s beginning someone could have destroyed the possibility of life within it by subtracting a single dime’s mass…” One reason is that mass impacts the expansion rate, which also must be highly fine-tuned for life to be possible.

In If God Made the Universe… Hugh lists uranium and thorium abundances among the many cosmic features that must exist at just-right levels and times or we wouldn’t be here to discover them. Or, as another scientist put it briefly, “It’s as if the universe knew we were coming.”

We are living at a unique time and place to witness the whole history of cosmic creation. And this is the amazing message it reveals: “Given the vast quantity of time and resources involved in creating a cosmic home for humanity…only one conclusion makes sense: The Creator of the cosmos places an extremely high value on and has a purpose for human beings.”

 

– Sandra

 

Personality Profile

“I certainly have not the talent which some people possess,” said Darcy, “of conversing easily with those I have never seen before. I cannot catch their tone of conversation, or appear interested in their concerns, as I often see done.”  —Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

Like Mr. Darcy of Jane Austen fame, I am an introvert. You’re more likely to find me curled up with a book or watching a movie alone than hobnobbing with friends. Though I’m not necessarily shy, social interaction of any kind, but especially with strangers, exhausts me.

According to the cover article of a recent issue of Time, an estimated 30 percent of the human population is introverted. Article author Bryan Walsh, himself an introvert, explains, “While extroverts draw energy from mingling with large groups of people…introverts find such social interactions taxing.”

For introverts, alone time is vital.

Thanks to advanced technology and ambitious experiments, scientists have discovered that temperament, whether introverted or extroverted, “seems strongly inborn and inherited.” Researchers found that even brain activity can differ between introverts and extroverts.

As I perused the Time article, several things stood out to me.

• Human personalities are incredibly complex. Many factors, temperament included, go into making each individual a unique entity. Sure, certain animals possess distinctive personalities, but not to the extent that humans do.
• Only humans show an interest in studying such things as temperament and personality. Animals don’t analyze each other to find out what makes the other tick. Even more amazing is the fact that we humans are capable of understanding the things we study.
• The human brain is incredibly intricate. Whole sections of our brain are dedicated to relational, intellectual, and communication functions in ways that far exceed even the cleverest critter. Moreover, research suggests that delayed human brain development—compared to animals’—contributes to our enhanced intellectual abilities.

These uniquely human characteristics make me question naturalism’s explanatory power. The mental gulf between humans and animals is enormous despite our shared biological similarities. When I discussed the Time article with RTB philosopher/theologian Ken Samples, also a fellow introvert, he reminded me that human beings appear to differ from animals not only in degree, but also in kind. We’re in a category all our own.

Ken further commented that, while naturalism has yet to come up with a satisfactory explanation for this categorical difference, Christianity attributes it to the fact that we humans bear the image of God. The imago Dei may not be empirically detectable, but as Ken says, “it is demonstrable; we can observe that it’s true” just by looking at the extreme differences between human and animal behavior.

The study of extroversion versus introversion makes another important point: God loves diversity. I’m really glad He saw fit to make us not only different from the animals, but also different from each other by giving each person a special piece of His image to bear. Life is so much more entertaining that way.

— Maureen

Resources: For a demonstration of how Christianity and naturalism measure up as viable worldviews, check out Ken’s book A World Difference. For more on the differences between animals and humans, see Hugh Ross’ latest book, Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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“