Monday, December 30, 2013

So You Say "The Big Bang Never Happened!" Part II

In order to untangle Psarris’ train of thought and the consequent “conclusions” he draws within his presentation, it is necessary that viewers of the vdeo make a distinction between the two concepts that are labeled “science” and “scientism.”  “Science,” can be defined as either a particular field of study within the material, natural world (physics, astronomy, geology, zoology, botany, etc.), or as the systematic study of the natural order (called the “scientific method”).  By contrast, “scientism” is NOT science, but instead, a philosophical belief about the extent and nature of reality as a whole.  Scientism as a philosophy, emphatically holds that material entities (matter and energy) are the only things that exist.  Scientism denies any reality to spiritual existence (Spirit, spirituality, mind, personality, etc.).  It is precisely because this philosophical position believes (hence: the suffix “ism”) that only material things exist (hence: the root word “science”) that it is called “scientism.”

Dr. Psarris completely confuses these two concepts.  Whether this confusion is sourced in personal ignorance, or whether it is deliberate, I cannot tell.  I shudder to imagine him to deliberately set out to deceive non-scientists.  Neither error, however, can it bode well for a lecturer arguing against the Big Bang on the authority of his scientific credentials as a physicist, by means of such confusing logic.    For example, Psarris repeatedly asserts that the Big Bang model is atheistic and explicitly anti-supernatural on the grounds that naturalism is the only allowable explanation for the events it purports to describe.  The logical problem with that objection is simple.  While it must be granted that certain cosmologists indeed allow only naturalistic explanations (thereby embracing the “scientism” described above), it emphatically does NOT logically follow from their philosophical prejudices that the broadly-acknow-ledged scientifically- attained data concerning the history of the universe is false.

The roster of that very data, ascertained by observation, which supports the absolute beginning of the universe out of nothing in the finite past, includes the cosmic pattern that 1) all galaxies are flying apart from one another, 2) that they are measurably farther apart now than they were in the past, 3) and that this expansion has been slowing down, 4) even as the temperature of the universe is cooling off.  5) We can also observe the background radiation from the initial “blast” (which was not chaotic, but highly controlled) at its beginning, 6) which reveals (with increasing visual detail as instruments improve) the disconformity in the radiation at the level that was required in order for stars to form.  Were this unfolding development reversed like rewinding a movie, that same pattern would take all of material existence back to a zero-volume singularity, the Big Bang, which was the absolute beginning of all things.
To be continued...

So You Say “The Big Bang Never Happened!” Part I

(This essay is a revision of a previous (deleted) posting titled “Who Loses if the big Bang is True?”)


“By faith we understand that the whole created order was fashioned by the command of God.”  (Hebrews 11:3)  
 
There has of late been a shift in the strategy of young-earth creationists in their apologetic challenge to atheistic materialism.  Until recently, their attacks focused directly on undermining the foundations of the Darwinian paradigm, including 1) the utter lack of transitional remains in the fossil record of the history of life, 2) the immensity of the challenge of non-living material naturalistically “evolving” to become life of even a most simple kind (technically the Darwinian change-mechanism  can’t even work until there exists life to be changed), 3) the challenge of blind processes (having no foresight or goal) producing, step-by-step, irreducibly complex machines (e.g. the stator rotator on a flagellum), and 4) the reality of enormous amounts of information laden within in the DNA of even the most primitive life forms discovered.  I agree that these four challenges carry enormous weight, even though I do not agree with certain aspects of their conclusions.

Just recently, certain leading young-earth creationists have, as late-comers, significantly expanded their apologetic strategy into the whole new area of astronomy.  For many old-earth creationist Christians, “cosmology” (the scientific study of the cosmos) and “cosmogony” (the scientific study of the beginnings of the same) has, as a branch of knowledge, become a very effective source of scientific evidence supporting the existence of the God of the Bible.  Young-earth creationists, on the other hand, have a far different assessment of the same evidence, particularly with respect both to the status of the evidence for a Big Bang, and also the implications of the Big Bang for the question of God’s existence. 

I took the opportunity a few months ago to carefully study a lecture on you tube titled, “The Big Bang Never Happened,” by scientist Spike Psarris.  He claims to have previously been an atheist, but apart from any Christian influence on his thinking about cosmology, he says came to believe in a young-earth view of creation strictly on the basis of the scientific evidence alone.  The video of his presentation had been recommended to me as her proof that a straight scientific examination of the cosmos, free from “evolutionary” assumptions, points to a cosmos that is between six and eight thousand years old.
To be continued...

Friday, December 27, 2013

Why Christmas Must be Controversial Part III

John 1:1-3, and v.14 draw together two extremely bold themes in regard to the status (“person”) of Jesus of Nazareth.  Moving backwards, I cite first v. 14 which highlights the Biblical claim that Jesus came into the world in the same way that we all do, that is, through the birth canal of a woman.  Early Christianity affirmed the full humanity of Jesus (Hebrews 4:15), and consequently fought against the competing notion that Jesus was never really a fully flesh-and-blood human being, by stating, “And the Word became flesh” (v.14. See also 1 John 1:1-3). 

Now to John 1:1-3, as to the One who came in the flesh on that night we call Christmas, was no less than God the creator of all things (See also Genesis 1, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2, 2 Peter 1:1).  The Christmas message is that God became human in Jesus of Nazareth.  He is “The Word become flesh” in John 1:14, “the image of the invisible God” in Colossians 1:15, and the One who “bears the very stamp of God’s nature” (Hebrews 1:3).  Of Himself Jesus said to Philip, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

To the questions raised three paragraphs above, the message of Christmas offers its (ramification-laden answer that the baby born in Bethlehem is no less than God Almighty who came in the flesh.  In the face of that claim neither apathy nor indifference is a rational option.  We are instead confronted with the all-important choice to either walk from Him, or receive Him as Savior and Lord (John 1:12).

May this Christmas become, for you, the most blest of all Christmases.

Why Christmas Must be Controversial Part II

Noted 20th Century literary critic and playwright, Christian, Dorothy Sayers, described Jesus similarly in her essay, “The Greatest drama Ever Staged.” (http://thesweetroad.com/2010/11/ 20/ the-greatest-drama-ever-staged-dorothy-sayers/).   She began her work by declaring, “The greatest drama that ever staggered the imagination of man is the orthodox creed of the Christian Church” (by “creed” was meant the 2nd Article of the “Apostles’ and “Nicene Creeds,” which reference God the Son). Concerning Jesus’ character she noted:

“The people who hanged Christ never, to do them justice, accused Him of being a bore – on the contrary; they thought Him too dynamic to be safe. It has been left for later generations to muffle up that shattering personality and surround him with an atmosphere of tedium. We have efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified Him “meek and mild,” and recommended him as a fitting household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies. To those who knew Him, however, He in no way suggested a milk-and-water person; they objected to Him as a dangerous firebrand.  … But He has a daily beauty in His life that made us ugly,” and officialdom felt that the established order of things would be more secure without Him. So they did away with God in the name of peace and quietness. 

Although Jesus is never once recorded to have boasted about his own oratorical powers and skills, the Gospel writers noted of Him (as historians have generally agreed) Jesus’ great popularity among the masses of common people (Matthew 9:35-37).  Yet significantly, this same passage also speaks of heightening resistance to Him on the part of others (who also concede His rhetorical power—Luke 20:26), namely the religious leaders, who recognize Jesus to be a threat to the corruption in which they generally all participated (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea are exceptions). 

Jesus named the spirit behind the division so described when He stated, “And this is the judgment [krisis Gk (crisis)], that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.  For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.  But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it might be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God” (John 3:19-21).

The greatest source of all, however, of the controversy and division surrounding Christmas, concerns not merely the personality, but even more, the very person (nature of His essence, or being) of Jesus of Nazareth.  Sayers opens her essay with the question “What think ye of Christ?,  which was of course inspired by Jesus’ two question to His disciples, namely, “Who do [others] say that I am?” and “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:13-15).  The answer to that largest of all questions that can be asked has ramifications for the whole rest of life.  It addresses such questions as 1) Is there a God?, 2) Is God a personality?, 3) Granting the existence of such a God, what then are His demands on me?, 4) What is God’s character?, and 5) Can I be in relationship with Him, and if so, how so?  Sayers concludes her section, referenced above, “So they did away with God in the name of peace and quietness.”   That statement highlights the most fundamental aspect of the Christian claim about Jesus.
To be continued...

Why Christmas Must Be Controversial Part I


“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth” – Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:34)

Those who have the strongest feelings about Christmas, either for, or against it, are the ones most aware of the formidable ramifications of the Christmas message.  The suggestion that Christmas is merely a trivial or harmless holiday can only be maintained if its central point is either, blunted, suppressed, or demonstrated to be false.  But logic will never allow Christmas, in its full-bodied expression, to be considered an inconsequential holiday. 

H.G. Wells affirmed this reality from one angle in his book series, “The Outline of History(v.I, (Garden City Books, 1920), p.425,6).  Though the famous science fiction writer was a strong opponent of Christianity, he nevertheless understood that the personality of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be trivialized or treated with indifference:

[Jesus] was too great for his disciples.  And in view of what he said, is it any wonder that all who were rich and prosperous felt a horror of strange things, a swimming of their world at his teaching?  Perhaps the priests and rulers and rich men understood him better than his followers.  He was dragging out all the little private reservations they had made into the light of a universal religious life.  He was like a terrible moral huntsman, digging mankind out of the snug burrows in which they had lived hitherto.  In the white blaze of his kingdom there was to be no property, no privilege, no pride, and no precedence, no motive and reward but love.  Is it any wonder that men were dazzled and blinded, and cried out against him?  Even his disciples cried out when he would not spare them that light.  It is any wonder that the priests realized that between this man and themselves there was no choice but that he or their priest craft should perish?  Is it any wonder that the Roman soldiers, confronted and amazed by something soaring over their comprehension and threatening all their disciplines, should take refuge in wild laughter, and crown him with thorns, and robe him in purple and make a mock Caesar of him?  For to take him seriously was to enter into a strange and alarming life, to abandon habits, to control instincts and impulses, to essay an incredible happiness . . . Is it any wonder that to this day this Galilean is too much for our small hearts?”

To be continued...

Friday, November 29, 2013

When Billions is Pittance, Conclusion

In light of the list from the previous posting it is therefore clear that, measured against standards of probability, the challenge of possible habitable planets out of blind forces alone is far from simple.  To the contrary, the chances are impossibly remote.  Of the 128 factors Ross cited in The Creator and the Cosmos, not one was estimated to have a probability figure higher than 1 in 10.  Many were far lower. 

In calculating the estimated probability of existent habitable planets by mindless powers alone, the procedure is to first of all to assemble all the known required environmental factors together (which popular articles on the question consistently fail to do), and then multiply the probable chance occurrence of each and every factor against every other factor.  Since Ross’s figures were published in 2001, his detractors will surely be quick to boast that current estimates of the number of habitable planets has risen considerably since that time.  But bear in mind that such figures actually yield the impossibly high average of one habitable planet for every thirty five stars (17 billion such planets out of 400 billion stars in our galaxy).  On the basis of point “(4)” alone (listed in the previous posting), close to 90% of stars are eliminated from the pool right off the bat.  I therefore judge the figures proclaimed in recent articles to be absurdly exaggerated!  Interestingly, it should also be noted that, on the other side of the ledger, discoveries over very same passage of time has lengthened the list of stringent conditions (involving high orders of magnitude) that are required in order for planets to be habitable.

Dr. Ross, as of 2001, made the following calculations:

The possibility of the chance occurrence of all 128 factors which are required for a planet to be habitable:  1 in 10 to the minus 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000

and as the maximum possible total number of planets in the universe at:       

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

Factoring these figures together, astronomer and physicist Dr. Hugh Ross calculates that (apart from the creative will of the Creator) there is “less than 1 chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe (Creator and the Cosmos, p.198).

Wouldn’t you know it!  Just as I conclude my present series I encounter an up-dated list as of 2009 from Hugh Ross, tiled “RTB Design Compendium.”  Included is a much more extensive list of 402 required “quantifiable characteristics” for advanced life.  See http://www.reasons.org/links/hugh/research-notes.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

When Billions is Pittance Part IV

Are the actual conditions for a planet to be inhabitable for advanced life really very simple, as popular literature on this subject seems to imply?  In the year 1966, Ioseph Shklovskii and Carl Sagan expressed awareness of only two such required parameters which included first, the need for a certain kind of star, and second, need of a planet located at just the right distance from that star (details cited across this paragraph can all be referenced in The Creator and the Cosmos, Third Expanded edition, (NavPress, 2001), chapter 16, “Earth: The Place for Life,” by astronomer and physicist, Dr. Hugh Ross.  Further details can be referenced at his website at www.reasons.org).  Ross writes, “What were 2 parameters in 1966 [(p.175)] grew to 8 by the end of the 1960s, to 23 by the end of the 1970s, to 30 by the end of the 1980s, to the current list of 123 [as of the printing of the book in 2001]” (p.187).  Further details on these matters can be found at http://www. reasons.org/articles/fine-tuning-for-life-in-the-universe.  Both of the above references include thorough documentation that represents research across the entire scientific community on matters of cosmology.

On p.188f of his book, Dr. Ross lists 66 parameters in his table, “Evidence for the Fine-Tuning of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support.  Later, on p. 195f, his table, “An Estimate of the Probability for Attaining the Necessary Parameters for Life Support,” he both lists 128 total required factors and (conservatively) estimates the probability of the occurrence of each of these necessary parameters.

Consider the following partial list of parameters necessary for habitable planets that are capable of supporting advanced life:  (1) that candidate planet must reside in spiral galaxy (only 5% of them are) that is (2) gravitationally associated with a small and loose cluster of other galaxies.  (3)  For reasons of protection from too much harmful radiation, it must reside at a just right location within the galaxy.  It must lie neither too close to nor too far away from either the galactic core or the spiral arms, and it must reside neither above nor below the galactic plane but in between.  (4) A habitable planet must have only one parent star (85-90% of known stars are doubles), (5) of a kind that happens to be a third generation star (6) of the right age, 7) right size, 8) level of stability, 9) and itself contain the necessary range of elements  to “seed” the solar system with solid planets like Earth.  (10) A habitable planet furthermore must itself, for gravitational reasons, be almost exactly the right size.  (11) It must lie at almost exactly the right distance from its parent star, and must contain on its surface (11) a wide range of the right elements, (12) included radioactive ones, (13) all in the necessary proportions.  (14) It must have neighboring planets of the right size (15) and distance.  (16) It must also have, for a host of critical reasons, a single moon, (17) of the right size, (18) at the right distance, and (19) revolving around its parent planet at the right speed.  A habitable planet furthermore (20) must have water, (21) rotate at the right speed, and (22) have both plate tectonics and (22) an electromagnetic field.
To be continued...

Monday, November 25, 2013

When Billions is Pittance Part III

When it is the actual search for extraterrestrial life that animates Darwinists in their assembly of a habitable-planets-in- the-universe list, it must be pointed out that several assumptions fuel that investigation.  They are assuming first of all that mindless evolution universally tends toward both the creation of, and the further development out of, life everywhere that the conditions allow. The logical problem with that assumption is that it utterly contradicts the foundational dogma of materialism, which is that nothing at all exists except for mindless (goal-less) matter.  Second, following logically from the first dubious assumption, they are asserting that a “habitable” planet must, at least potentially, equate to an “inhabited” planet.  Yet in fact these assumptions really amount to nothing more than arguing in a circle. 

Before I fulfill the intention of the title of this essay to lay out the reason why billions of planets in our own galaxy amount to pittance with respect to the question of other habitable planets, I wish to highlight one further highly relevant concern.  The literature I read on these matters consistently understates the ramifications from the distinction between so-called primitive (single-cell) life on the one hand, and advanced life (homo sapiens) on the other in matters of habitability.  The former is by order of magnitudes more adaptable to “environment” conditions of a kind that would be absolutely hostile, if not fatal, to the survival of, say, human-like creatures. 

Now, I will turn us to the extensive list of the actual environmental requirements that are necessary for any planet to be considered as “friendly” to advanced life on the order of human beings.
To be continued…       

Saturday, November 23, 2013

When Billions is Pittance Part II

On the other hand, it is in the actual interest of Darwinists that evidence for habitable planets across the cosmos should continue to mount in an accelerating fashion.  After all, it is logically sound that the greater the sample of potentially desirable planets, the greater the chances that life should have sprung up elsewhere in the universe, perhaps even ubiquitously.   My critique of the Darwinian agenda is not their logic in this particular matter.  It is instead their actual failure, firstly, to demonstrate the evolutionary chemical transition from non-life to life in the first place, and secondly their failure (by an utter lack of a transitional fossil trail, most glaringly illustrated in the “Cambrian Explosion”) to demonstrate the Darwinian program of the amoeba –to-man development of life right here on planet Earth under the most favorable environmental conditions.  Worse still, Darwinists are at an utter loss to account for the very beginning of material existence (space, time, matter, and energy) in the Big Bang, not to mention accounting for the existence of the kind of source that is logically required to bring material existence into being in the first place.  Therefore Darwinists are effectively asking for a free pass when they down-play the challenge of the beginning of existence out of nothing and insist instead on limiting discussion about origins to “the toys already on the floor.”   

Now to the matter of the overlooking of enormously relevant factors:  An article from the NASA website dated July 17, 2013, titled, “In the Zone: How Scientists Search for Habitable Planets,” states that astronomers “search for potentially habitable planets using a handful of criteria (boldface mine). …The hunt is on for planets about the size of Earth that orbit at just the right distance from their star – in a region termed the habitable zone. …NASA’s Kepler mission is helping scientists in the quest to find these worlds. (www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/ news/ kepler20130717.hi).

The articles I read declare that recent scientific exploration has uncovered the potential existence of between eight and seventeen billion habitable planets right within our own Milky Way Galaxy.  Under the specific terms that are laid out in the NASA article above I will not argue against the legitimacy of these numbers.  As a non-astronomer I am not in a position to address that challenge.  I will instead challenge the prevailing thesis that builds upon them on other grounds that in fact do place me on equal footing with cosmologists.  I will do so with non-controversial scientific data that is available to all.  Let me just say for now that the word “billions” is a relative term.  Possession of a billion dollars is an impossibly large figure for an average person like me to imagine.    On the other hand, a billion is a tiny number when measured against a number such as “a hundred thousand trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion.” The significance of that number with respect to the question of habitable planets will be laid out in the following postings.

To be continued…   

When Billions is Pittance Part I

“Astronomers ‘search for potentially habitable planets using a handful of criteria’” (NASA website)
Investigating the heavens to estimate the number of habitable planets in the cosmos is what scientists, by definition, do.  They should be so encouraged, with blessing from the Bible (Romans 1:18).  However when scientists actually cheer the alleged mounting number of life-habitable planets, they are then involving themselves in something other than pure science.  As a Christian I acknowledge my personal desire that the testimony of science should support Christian belief in the God of the Bible.  My recitation of that evidence, however, is not science, but apologetics.  Correspondingly, the obvious desire of many (not all) in the scientific and journalistic communities to find increasing numbers of habitable planets, accompanied by their gleeful celebration at that very prospect, gives strong indication that the scientific spirit (an impassioned pursuit of truth wherever the evidence leads) is NOT what guides their goal in this particular case.  I am not suggesting that that attitude, in itself, nullifies their findings.  But it ought to raise fundamental questions about the precise criteria that are applied to the question, and what actual data has been accumulated to determine the answer to the challenge of finding habitable planets.  I am here arguing that what is glaringly overlooked or worse, ignored, in their quest, in fact calls the “assured” results of their venture entirely into question.
A specific example of the overlooking of relevant factors will be referenced in the next paragraph just below.  For now however, I wish to share that, as a Christian, I consider that the outcome of the question of habitable planets elsewhere in the universe to be irrelevant to my beliefs about God and the Bible.  In an article I wrote over a decade ago titled, “What We Can Know About Life on Other Planets,” I stated what I still believe, ”Life on other planets is a theoretical possibility.  Although some Christians reject this statement on the basis of Genesis chapter one, I do not.  The God of the Bible can create whomever and whatever He pleases [e.g. angels, who are apparently immaterial beings living in other dimensions].  God is not obligated to tell us what He may be doing in another corner of His creation.  And it is asking too much of the Bible to demand to know what plan God may have for creatures elsewhere in the universe.  Silence from Scripture about other worlds does not preclude the possibility of their existence.  God is quite big enough to care for creatures beyond us earthlings.”  I hasten to add here the proviso that life happens at all, only insofar as God intentionally creates it.
to be continued...

Friday, November 8, 2013

Straight To the Highest Authority Part IV

“If I do not know the meaning of the language… the speaker [shall be] a foreigner to me.”  (1 Corinthians 14:11)
 
The consequences that follow from the failure to consult the Hebrew are not limited, however, to adherents of the evangelical end of the investigational spectrum.  While my blog postings make clear my serious disagreements with my brothers and sisters in Christ who, relying on English translations, insist that the creation days of Genesis are 24-hour, others also commit this same error.  Certain scientists too (especially committed to naturalism), consistently dismiss the record of Genesis creation account for the very same reason as do Christian fundamentalists.  To be clear here, I am not suggesting these scientists personally believe the creation periods are that short.  I am saying they believe (wrongly) that that interpretation is what the Book of Genesis actually intends.
In his essay, “Genesis, Cosmology, and Evolution,” Rabbi Hillel Goldberg (obviously a Hebrew speaker!) challenges Charles Darwin’s attempted disproof of the Genesis account and his consequent assertion that he thereby logically disproved the God of the Bible.  In doing so he first of all states, “The only readers who take the Torah both literally and uni-dimensionally…are non-Hebrew readers. The simplicity ascribed to the Biblical account of creation within Western culture is not and never has been a part of the intellectual heritage of even the most Orthodox Jewish believers...For millennia, the [Hebrew] interpreter of the Torah has lived congenially with the multiple denotations and connotations of Hebrew words, phrases, and themes. Indeed, he has gloried in them, without, however, violating the plain sense of the text — without twisting its clear intent. If a reader lets Genesis be Genesis, not a translated stultification thereof, Genesis is scientifically accurate. And then, to the point, he concludes, The Genesis that Darwin [attempted to disprove] does not exist, the English renderings he refuted do not, in critical details, reflect the Hebrew(boldface mine).  See http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5760summer/genesis.pdf. (boldface and ellipses are mine.            
Martin Luther himself placed great importance on a high level of awareness of the original biblical languages, especially for Christian preachers and teachers.  Looking back on the history of the church from his perspective, he writes, “Without the languages [the original Hebrew and Greek]we could not have received the Gospel we could not have received the Gospel…If we neglect [the same] we shall eventually lose the Gospel…In former times the fathers were frequently mistaken, because they were ignorant of the languages… although their doctrine is good, they have often erred in the real meaning of the sacred text; they are without arms against error, and I fear much that their faith will not remain pure.  W. Carlos Martyn.  The Life and Times of martin Luther. (American Tract Society, 1866), p.474,475.  See also Luther’s extensive discussion of this matter in Walter Brandt, ed. Luther’s Works v.45. (Fortress, 1962), p.359f.


Straight To the Highest Authority Part III

“If I do not know the meaning of the language… the speaker [shall be] a foreigner to me.”  (1 Corinthians 14:11)
(restating from my previous posting) On this issue it is highly significant how far afield popular English translations can deviate from the original Hebrew manuscript in both vocabulary and grammar.  To be specific I quote in endnote 5 of my own work, “The Biblical Demand to Take Another Look,” in order to lay out ten specific examples, almost all of which have a direct bearing on the correct interpretation of the creation days of Genesis:
 “The importance of this question [the interpretation of the days of Genesis] is heightened by the controversial nature of the texts at hand. I highlight the ESV (English Standard Version) because it is representative of a host of other popular translations. Although the ESV bills itself as “an essentially literal” Bible translation that is “carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to ensure the fullest accuracy(The Lutheran Study Bible English Standard Version. (Concordia Publishing, 2009), p.XV.), the following details raise important challenges concerning that claim: 1) In Genesis 1:2 the decisive conjunction, “and,” is missing even though it is both present in the Hebrew text, and is studiously included, as the Hebrew demands, everywhere else in the English translation of Genesis 1.  2) In Gen. 1:5, two errors are involved. First there should be no definite article since it is not present in the Hebrew. Also, the term “first day” should instead be translated “day “1” since it is a cardinal number, not ordinal.  3,4,5,6) There should not be a definite article (“the”)  for days 2 through 5 since it is omitted in the Hebrew. They should instead be translated as “a second day…, a third day…,” etc.  7) In Gen. 2:4b the definite article (“the earth and the heavens”.) is used twice even though it is not present in the Hebrew.  8,9) Although the ESV translates Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 as “For in six days,” the Hebrew text does not include the preposition “in” (as in “within”). It only appears in the English translation (of inter-linear texts) inside brackets [ ]. The Hebrew text literally says, “For six days God made….” While this necessary excision does not nullify the aspect of time altogether, it does suggest that the exact duration involved was not the central point of the statement. In any case the actual text cannot bear the weight young-earth creationists place upon it (see p.5, above).  10) In Daniel 8:26, the Hebrew text does not employ plural nouns, but singular ones, thereby actually saying, “the vision of the evening and the morning” (note articles). This point is significant for the reason that young-earth creationists consistently argue that the “evening…morning” refrain signals the “bound[ing]” of expressly 24-hour days (the LSB (above), note on Genesis 1:5). I reply to the contrary that in this instance the span of time recalled in the singular “evening” and “morning” vision in Daniel 8:26 actually spans several centuries, as implied earlier in 8:20,21.”

It is not sufficient, however, for you to merely become aware of these deviations.  It is important that you finish my essay with an eye on the ramifications for interpretation that follow from each of them.

To be continued

Straight To the Highest Authority Part II

“If I do not know the meaning of the language… the speaker [shall be] a foreigner to me.”  (1 Corinthians 14:11)
 
I encourage you to read my essay, “The Biblical Demand to Take Another Look at Genesis 1,” which you can download from my website at www.christianityontheoffense.com.  It is in that article that I share insights, bibliographical materials, and web addresses to assist you in your own journey to understand the relevant questions about that text.  The bottom line is that, because the Book of Genesis was first written in Hebrew, English readers must not uncritically rely solely on English translations for taking dogmatic positions on the creation days of Genesis 1.  People have expressed concerns directly to me that it is too difficult for the lay person to check the facts for themselves.   To those who may be weary, I assure you that my research can be easily checked against the original text for accuracy.  What this means for you is that you can investigate for yourselves the claims I make in my writings (with tools I mention above).  I am an open book with nothing to hide in these matters.  So I invite you to delve into the evidence for yourself.  The bottom line in all of this is that, for the person who is interested in these questions, hard work simply cannot be avoided.

On this issue it is highly significant how far afield popular English translations can deviate from the original Hebrew manuscript in both vocabulary and grammar.  To be specific I quote in endnote 5 of my own work, “The Biblical Demand to Take Another Look,” in order to lay out ten specific examples, almost all of which have a direct bearing on the correct interpretation of the creation days of Genesis:

To be continued

Straight To the Highest Authority

“If I do not know the meaning of the language… the speaker [shall be] a foreigner to me.”  (1 Corinthians 14:11)

In one of my favorite cartoons from Leadership magazine (I have lost the reference), two choir members seated behind the pulpit of a church are looking over the shoulders of the pastor who is preaching to his congregation.  To their right as they look out onto the congregation, they see the sea of somber faces of the audience who is listening to his sermon.  But to their left, as they are peer over the shoulders of a deaf interpreter signing the sermon to the remainder who cannot hear, they notice that they are rolling over in the aisles with laughter.  The very sight leads the one choir member to whisper to the other, “I think the deaf interpreter is adlibbing again.”

Of course their contrasting responses to the same sermon hint that the original message was either lost or confused somewhere in the transmission.  While certain people that morning may have enjoyed the hilarity of the moment, something stood between them and the capturing of the main point!  To my point, while translators from one language may partially convey the original message to speakers of a different language, they cannot do so exhaustively.  Something will be lost in that communication.  This reality should not disturb us.  My point in writing is not to decry the challenge of speaking cross-culturally.  To the contrary, we have good reasons to do the hard work that celebrating differences between members of differing languages and cultures demands.  So I write instead to encourage recognition that these challenges exist so that we give the required attention to assuring we understand the speaker of another language as best we can.  Attitudes both of haste and laziness can easily get in the way of successful communication cross-culturally.

For Christians, the endeavor to understand the opening chapters of Genesis is a significant cross-cultural challenge.  My purpose in writing this, I repeat, is not to discourage my readers.  Of the two main original languages of the Bible, Hebrew and Greek, I am far more comfortable with the latter.  I have had formal study of both, but far less so of the former.  Indeed the benefit I gain from my comfort with the Greek New Testament makes clear how much I have yet to learn from the Hebrew Testament.  Nevertheless, with the aid of books, articles and essays by Hebrew speakers, commentaries, an inter-linear Hebrew Old Testament, and serious research, I have matured in my understanding and respect of the language of the opening chapters of Genesis.

To be continued…


                              

Friday, October 4, 2013

"Not Enough 'Jesus'" Part II

It is significant that a fundamental premise of secular “science” includes the conviction that miracles are in principle impossible.  Secular scientific belief (properly labeled “scientism”) asserts that since (as they say) matter is all there is, the only possible source of influence on a given natural process must itself be a previous mechanistic event.  Big Bang cosmology (notice my letter to Dr. Richard Dawkins in my previous blog) challenges scientism on that very contention.  To repeat that argument briefly, the Big Bang reveals, in absence of scientific materials and processes, an absolute beginning of all things out of absolutely nothing.  This means, assuming it to be true (and it is!), that the origin of the universe is, itself, a miracle!

On the basis of such relevant recent scientific evidence just described, questions of the biblical view of creation continue in their importance.  A resurrected Christ who is left, pardon the pun, “hanging mid-air,” (that is, un-linked to other biblical truths) is NOT adequate to save.  But Christianity doesn’t teach that anyway.  Christianity says Jesus is our savior from sin precisely because He is God, and by “god” we don’t mean just “any old god.”  The Bible does not call readers to believe in a generic “god.”  To the contrary it calls us to distinguish between idols (false gods that are limited by definition and non-existent in any case) which tempt people of every culture and time, on the one hand, and, on the other, the only true and living God who both “made heaven and earth” at the beginning of time (Genesis 1:1), and in the fullness of time entered our world in the flesh in Jesus Christ (John 1:14).

An inadequate view of creation logically leads to an inadequate conception of the weight of the saving power of Christ in the blood He shed on the cross.  Because He is God, God the Son, who “in the beginning” made “all things” (John 1:1,2), the blood of the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,” therefore avails for every sin and every sinner from all time who receives Him by faith (John 1:12).  No being of lesser stature would be able to accomplish that task.  This is why I do not consider matters of creation unimportant.  In itself the doctrine of creation is not adequate for salvation.  But an adequate conception of creation is necessary for the robust doctrine of Christ’s redemption according to the Bible.

"There's Not Enough 'Jesus' in Your Blog!" Part I

“My help is in the name of the LORD who made heaven and earth.” (Psalm 121:2)

Why don’t you talk more about Jesus on your blog since you call yourself a Lutheran Pastor?”  I have been asked this question in a variety of ways from time to time.  Considering my position as a pastor, it strikes me as a reasonable question.  Seriously!  I indeed do give more attention (OK, much more) to creation theology, including natural theology, in my blog than I do “Christology” of a kind that centers on Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection for our sins.  And when on the occasion that I do zero in on the Bible, my fairly consistent focus is on the interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis which concern the creation of the heavens and the earth.  For many LCMS (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) Christians especially, it can easily appear that I have my priorities all wrong.  In the recent publication, The Natural Knowledge of God: In Christian Confession &  Christian Witness (A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, 2013), the consistent theme is that natural theology, though important, is inadequate.  After all, Jesus said, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39,40).  It is therefore clear that Jesus Christ must be recognized as the center of the Holy Bible.  Taken as a whole, our message as Christians is indeed inadequate whenever we neglect Him as that very center.

Yet inadequacy with respect to biblical-theological themes can take more than one form.  Langdon Gilkey began his book, Maker of Heaven and Earth (Anchor Books, 1967), with the question, “What is the first thing Christians say when they begin to state their beliefs?”  He replies that the answer must necessarily be “creation” for the reason (expanded over several pages) that the efficacy of a given savior- figure is bolstered by the measured adequacy of that power-figure to actually save.  The prophet Isaiah, for example, stated, “Thus says the LORD your redeemer…I am the LORD who makes all things, who stretches out the heavens alone” (Isaiah 44:24).  Psalm 121:2 declares similarly, “My help is in the name of the LORD who made heaven and earth” (boldface mine, and there are no commas in biblical Hebrew).

Biblical, orthodox Christianity, which has its center in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is Trinitarian.  The term “trinity” consists of the two smaller words, “tri” (meaning “three”) and “unity.”  Christianity does not embrace the “unitarian” belief in God as a solitary personage.  We believe to the contrary in the mystery of the Trinitarian formula, “one God in three Persons [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit].”  The consistent challenge of Christian belief is that we work to maintain a proper biblical balance in our consideration of the workings of each of these three Persons.

Now it is of course true that there is no Christianity apart from the finished work of Jesus Christ by His death on the cross for our sins, and His resurrection from the dead.  He is the central foundation of my faith (which is orthodox Lutheran Christianity).  For the record I hasten to add here that the case for the historical truth of the Gospels, for Jesus’ life, death, and miracles, and most especially for His historical resurrection from the dead, is so soundly vindicated by the results of rigorous historical investigation, questions about the truth of Christianity at that level have come to bore me.  Furthermore, these matters are already powerfully and effectively argued by a broad array of apologists.

Monday, September 30, 2013

My Retraction re Pastor Fisk's Retraction

Dear readers,
It has come to my attention that Reverend Jonathan Fisk, whom I referenced in a previous blog titled, "The Forgiveness of Sins is Not a Club to Be Wielded," has withdrawn the video that prompted me to write that article.  This was the right thing for him to do.  And I, for my part, ought to have gone directly to him first of all in the first place.  I want to publically announce the wise decision he made to apologize on the air for the earlier production.

Dr. (Richard) Dawkins, Just One Question!

“Ever since the creation His invisible nature, namely His eternal power and deity has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.  So they are without excuse.”  (Romans 1:20)

A copy of this posting has been sent to the Richard Dawkins Foundation

“Dr. Dawkins, time and time again, both across the airwaves and in print, you have defined faith as belief in absence of evidence.  Just this past week I heard you state very closely to the effect that “religious faith is the denial of evidence.”  Now I consider your attempted definition of faith to be its own example of belief without evidence for the simple reason that your assertions on faith can easily be demonstrated to be false.  Be that as it may, my single question to you, in the form of a request, is, by your own “scientific” criteria would you please provide us with a scientific accounting of the beginning  and existence of the universe in light of the accumulated insights of Big Bang cosmology?  Since the retracing of the history of the expansion of the universe points astronomers back to an absolute beginning of the universe out of nothing, the Big Bang cannot scientifically be employed as a potential cause of that beginning.  It is rather the effect of a completely different (transcendent?) cause.  Einstein’s repeatedly and rigorously tested discovery, his General Theory of Relativity, points to the reality that all of matter, energy, space, and time came to existence out of this “'zero-volume' singularity” (Stephen Hawking).  So neither matter nor energy as entities, nor space as a spatial arena, nor time to provide the possibility of duration, were yet in existence so as to provide even a potential scientific cause for the existence of the universe.  I repeat then, what scientific answer do you propose as an explanation for the beginning of the cosmos that you can claim to be superior to the Christian belief that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”?       

Sunday, September 22, 2013

We Should Not Arrive at Conclusions Part II

I had requested a serious exegetical critique of my paper so that I might either correct or clarify my line of argument.  I am a sincere seeker of the truth who is prepared to walk away from stated positions that are demonstrated to be incorrect.  I was not seeking approval.  Yet I was expecting a higher level of engagement with him the professor than I received.  Since I had laid my cards on the table at the outset, thereby giving him an opportunity to freely challenge my position, I was anticipating a serious yet eager challenge from him.  So I was surprised and disappointed that he chose to bemoan the fact that I had already taken my stance.  The offering of successful counter-arguments, should he have chosen to provide them, would seem to me to have provided him an opportunity to correct me.  Instead, he complained about an apparent stubbornness on my part.

In light of the total absence of a direct challenge to my specific arguments that point favorably to the day-age position on the creation days of Genesis, I am quite frankly surprised at the certitude with which he holds his position.  The specific set of arguments from the original Hebrew text of the Bible that ground my position will be laid out in my next posting.  What I find most surprising of all at this point is in the opening statement in the body of his letter, namely, “I have never made a special effort to hunt around to see whether anyone has attempted to address this issue in detail. I am unaware of any serious academic commentary on Genesis that treats the question at all for the simple reason that neither those who hold to a traditional view of Genesis 1 or those who hold to a liberal view of Genesis 1 regard this as a serious question [sic].”

The answer to the question of whether there are serious Hebrew scholars who embrace the day-age position on the days of Genesis cannot be legitimately determined by a prejudice that is founded on will-full ignorance.  The Lutheran Church---Missouri Synod has historically taken a decidedly strong young-earth position on creation.  For this reason it is academically inexcusable for him to boast, “I have never made a special effort to hunt around to see whether anyone has attempted to address this issue in detail.”   Neither his decision in advance that this is not a “serious question,” nor  his candid admission that he is “unaware” of serious scholars who embrace the day-age view, can, in truth, be made to harmonize as serious academic inquiry.  The only legitimate way to arrive at the truth of the matter is to take the trouble to investigate every side of each individual argument one-by-one, which is exactly what my paper, “The Biblical Demand to Take Another Look” endeavors to do.

Worse still for the professor, his assertion of a lack of scholarship supporting the day-age position is refuted on the very first page of my paper where I include a roster of top flight Biblical scholars (adhering to the “inerrant Scripture” standard) who disagree with him.  He already had my paper in front of him as of the time of our correspondence.  That, despite his protest that he had already read my paper, he dismissed my listing of such as though it did not appear, renders his verdict that there is no serious scholarship supporting me, illegitimate.

It is not by weight of academic degrees that academic questions are answered, but by the serious level of scholastic investigation that is determined to follow the evidence wherever it actually leads.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

We Should Not Arrive at Conclusions by Degree Alone

[They examined] the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”—Acts 17:11
 

Since my interpretation of the creation days in the first chapters of Genesis is a minority view in my denomination, I have obligated myself to the submission of my paper, “The Biblical Demand to Take Another Look,” in order that it might receive rigorous critique.  It is my personal standard to avoid all errors and all misrepresentations in my papers, and to quickly correct them wherever discovered.  To fulfill this goal I went to the “experts” (approximately ten) in the specific fields of study that my paper addresses in order to receive their scholarly assessment.  Included on this list were two professors of Old Testament, the first of which freely and effectively employs the Hebrew text to emphasize and clarify his points.  I was astonished to receive his reply that he was not comfortable with addressing the Genesis creation account (even though I have encountered his comments on this area in public documents).  He instead deferred me to the “’Answers in Genesis’ man” on the same faculty who was also department head.


Having already received my paper for examination, what follows is a significant portion of his reply:


You asked whether I could point you to “a sustained exegetical study of Genesis 1 that argues successfully for the 24-hour day position.” Frankly, since you are already committed to the view that the word 'day' in Genesis 1 is used by the author to represent some long period of time, I doubt whether any treatment of the question could possibly "argue successfully" for the view that you have already rejected. In any case, I have never made a special effort to hunt around to see whether anyone has attempted to address this issue in detail. I am unaware of any serious academic commentary on Genesis that treats the question at all for the simple reason that neither those who hold to a traditional view of Genesis 1 or those who hold to a liberal view of Genesis 1 regard this as a serious question. Both liberals and traditional conservatives know quite well that the Hebrew word 'yom' is used most of the time in Genesis 1 to refer to what we might call a 'common day'. Liberals, of course, acknowledge that while 'yom' is used in Genesis 1 to refer to a common day, the entire account is 'mythological' and therefore by definition non-historical. What you describe as the 'day-age position' is a view promoted by those who desire to find some middle ground between traditional conservatism and liberalism, and do so in such a way that they can harmonize Genesis 1 to views of contemporary science about the origins of the material world. As the liberal commentator John Skinner has noted, “It is recognized by all recent harmonists that the definition of ‘day’ as ‘geological period’ is essential to their theory: it is exegetically indefensible (John Skinner, Genesis (ICC 1930), 5n.)”. In this Skinner is right. Nothing in Genesis 1 suggests that most of the account of the creation of the material world in seven yoms should be taken to imply seven 'ages' or long periods of time, and everything in the text militates against it.

There are a handful of challenges I might offer to his letter.  But it is most important here to highlight his “appeal to authority” for the express purpose of stifling a thorough investigation of the actual facts of the Hebrew text in Genesis.

To be continued…

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

The Forgiveness of Sins is Not... Part II

            According to Fisk’s blog, the Good News of the forgiveness of sins was not a part of the apologist’s message.  He may or he may not be correct in the impression his video conveys on this matter.  Yet this too is not my point.  Whenever Christians do herald this forgiveness we are ourselves individually confessing that this is the one message that stands between us and the judgment that we all would otherwise face.  Having the “knowledge” of the forgiveness of sins does not make the Christian superior to others.  It is instead a reminder that every human being is in the same boat before the same God who loves us in spite of our sin and encourages us to share with others that very news.  When some are confused about the forgiveness of sins, it is our privilege to announcement it with humility and joy.

The message of the forgiveness of sins is not a club with which to clobber others who are down, including fellow Christians.  Neither is it about a club in the sense of Christians circling the wagons in self-congratulations over some achievement of doctrinal purity.  Shall we clarify the good news?  Yes!  But let us do so in kindness and humility for the glory of God who sent His son for us all.
Your servant pastor, Gary         

The forgiveness of Sins is Not a Club to be Wielded

“If one is overtaken in any trespass, you… should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.” (Galatians 6:1)

[I just wrote this as a newsletter article for my congregation]

One of my favorite classes of all time was “Constructive Theology” during my senior year at seminary.   Twenty students sat around a large table, each one spending an entire class hour presenting our own eight page tightly-argued paper which laid out our theological position, addressing the assigned major biblical themes (God, Christ, the atonement, the Bible, etc).  Then the other students sitting around the table were given the opportunity to either seek clarification about a statement, or actually challenge the presenter on specific points.  At Luther seminary there was a lot of diversity of opinion (from “conservative” to “liberal”) about these matters.  Discussion was often vigorous.   After our presentation, we each met with our professor who assigned us further research and reading for the purpose of revising and strengthening our initial paper.  I wondered at the time why my wonderful professor was not appreciated by the rest of the faculty.  To this day I regard his contribution to my life then as foundational.  However, he did not receive tenure (a permanent position) at that school, and for years I wondered what became of him…until the day I stumbled onto him as he spoke over the radio.  He was taking one side of a radio “debate” on the resurrection of Christ (I can’t remember the particulars), which I sadly turned off well before the engagement concluded.  I could not listen because he was belittling his opponent.  That encounter horrified and embarrassed me, and I resolved that I would not be like him and would never engage with people in such a disgusting manner.

From time to time you hear me speak, both from the pulpit and in class, of the importance of being equipped as Christians to engage with our culture in the truth of the Gospel.  You are also aware of my involvement in two public debates.  I want you to understand that I am not suggesting that every Christian become a public debater (being a debater, properly understood, is not a bad thing).  Far from it.  What I seek instead is that Christians become so comfortable in what we know and why, that being “on attack mode” never enters our thinking.  We are invited to love people into the kingdom of God, not belittle or argue them in.  Yet it is also true that the more we know (and why we believe) the more comfortable we become around people who think different than we do.  And unless we imagine (wrongly) that we must trumpet our knowledge, the more comfortable others become around us.

The existence of another blog than my own was just recently brought to my attention.  The address is  http://www.worldvieweverlasting.com/2013/09/13/an-intellectual-tragedy-of-moralistic-proportions/.   It concerns a famous apologist whose daughter (perhaps in her early 20’s) announced that she had now become an atheist.  The blogger, Jonathan Fisk (a fellow LCMS pastor), highlighted key “transgressions” (on the part of the apologist) which he alleges contributed to the journey of the daughter into her atheism.  For the record I largely share the list of objections that Fisk listed on his blog.  But I sharply disagree with what I heard of the father’s theology and training tactics in a number of areas.  But at the same time I am also disgusted at the lack of humility and compassion on the part of the LCMS pastor.  The rejection by a daughter, of the values of a parent, may or may not be warranted depending on the circumstances.  For the record I do not agree that the specific disagreements of the daughter warranted her embracing of atheism.  But this is not my point.  Whenever such rifts happen there will surely be a heavy dose of pain and embarrassment for one or both parties.  So I ask, is the exposure of sin and its consequences to be our final word, and in such a public manner?
To be continued...