|
Reasons Newsletter - 2008 - July/August
Moses, the Original MythbusterBy Krista Bontrager Every culture has its own creation myths. Today, secular Darwinism might be seen as a creation such a myth, as it offers a description for where we came from and where we’re going. The ancient Mesopotamian story, the Enuma Elish (the most ancient known written creation myth), describes a battle between Marduk and Tiamut for ultimate control of the world. As the story goes, Marduk triumphs and then splits Tiamut in two. He fashions one half into the heavens and the other into the earth. The Egyptians had many creation myths, but generally had one thing in common: the notion that the creator god and the world emerged from primeval waters called Nun. The creator god is said to have come out of the waters and then shape the rest of the Egyptian gods and goddesses, who represent the various parts of nature. For thousands of years, however, the Bible’s creation story has stood in stark contrast to all creation myths. Moses, the likely author of Genesis, wrote it as a rebuttal against the myths of Israel’s neighboring civilizations. Given its historical and cultural context, it is no surprise that the biblical creation account shares a few literary features with these myths. Similarities The Bible and the myths of Israel’s neighbors also share some other broad themes, such as the origin of humans and the origin of evil. These similarities enrich our appreciation and understanding of the biblical account. Differences In Genesis, there are no rival gods vying for control of the universe. The God of Israel exists and operates alone. By His own word He brought the entire physical universe into existence. Another key difference involves the dignity of humanity. The Enuma Elish describes humans as the result of a union between clay and the blood of a demon god. The Bible describes Adam’s creation as a union of God-formed dust with the breath of God Himself. Instead of serving as the deity’s slave, as in the Mesopotamian myth, Adam was given charge over a beautiful garden and the task of ruling creation. Although genuine thematic parallels exist between Genesis 1 and neighboring societies’ creation myths, Moses’ concept of God radically differed. The gods of Sumeria, Babylon, and Egypt bear no resemblance to YHWH. Genesis 1 presents a direct assault on the alternative pagan creation stories of the ancient world, with their fantasy and superstition. The God of the Bible stands in stark contrast to the gods of myth. The message and purpose of Genesis 1 is the revelation of the one true God who created all things out of nothing and who forever keeps the universe under His sovereign control.
Thoughts on the Big BangBy David H Rogstad, Ph.D. Controversy surrounds the big bang theory in both the scientific community and the Christian community. Some scientists reject it because it makes the universe “too young” (for evolution), some creationists because it makes the universe too old. How should Christians consider the big bang event? The body of scientific evidence supporting big bang theory continually grows. It includes the discovery that our universe is expanding from an original point of origin, that Einstein’s general theory of relativity precisely predicted cosmic expansion, and that astronomers observe radiation left over from the origin event. Scientists’ reasons for doubt become less convincing as more evidence accumulates. Those Christians who reject the big bang cite various reasons for doing so, including the “we-weren’t-there” argument, a lack of consensus in the scientific community, the dangerous “quicksand” of changing science, their belief that good can’t result from an explosion and that its billions of years contradict the “clear teaching of Scripture.” These objections arise from exaggerations or misunderstandings. Although humans did not exist at the dawn of creation, today, when studying distant galaxies, we look back in time because it takes time for light to travel. Although the Christian community frequently lacks consensus, Christianity isn’t discredited. And although science does change, most of the evidence for the big bang appears in the data itself, which is unlikely to change. Additionally, visualizing the big bang as a chaotic explosion represents a misunderstanding. Think about the big bang as a very tightly-wound spring released to unwind. Most significantly, there are ways to interpret Scripture that remain faithful to the text but permit the long periods of time required by the big bang. The biblical description of creation fits the key concepts of the big bang model: beginning, stretching, cooling, and ending. Genesis 1 says, “In the beginning, God created …”. Several passages, including Psalms 104, declare that “He stretches out the heavens like a tent.” Jeremiah 33 refers to the “fixed laws of heaven and earth,” a condition that implies the universe will cool as it expands. Peter and John both refer to heaven and earth passing away to be replaced by a new creation. In spite of its reputation, the big bang provides a powerful evangelistic tool. It demonstrates that science and Scripture are not in conflict, but in complete harmony. In the end, we can claim that the Bible said it first.
Addressing Resurrection Alternatives (Part Three)By Kenneth Samples Some skeptics argue for the separation of religion and science based on the assertion that religious beliefs are not subject to objective testing—either verification or falsification—as scientific hypotheses are. Christianity, however, stands apart. It is possible, theoretically, to falsify Christianity’s core doctrines. For example, if Jesus of Nazareth’s bodily resurrection from the dead could be convincingly disproved then the Christian faith would be, for all intents and purposes, falsified. Paul asserts this possibility in his writings (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17). So it’s important for believers to be prepared to respond to various attempts at explaining away this pivotal historic event. Some skeptics suggest that amid the grief and confusion of the crucifixion, the women who followed Jesus mistook the location of his burial cave and went to the wrong one, which they found and reported as “empty.” This scenario seems unlikely on two counts: first, these women would have watched carefully where the body was laid because they planned to return with spices, perhaps before daylight; second, their plan involved considerable expense—including the cost of the spices and the mortal danger of being caught by Jesus’ enemies, both Roman and Jewish. Even in the unlikely event of misidentified location, substantial challenges remain. Joseph of Arimathea, the tomb’s owner, could certainly have redirected Jesus’ followers to the correct location. The disciples would not have taken the women’s word without checking. Further, the Roman soldiers assigned to guard Jesus’ tomb would not have been posted at the wrong tomb. Given that the Jewish and Roman officials were more than eager to quash Christianity, they would have made every effort to find the right tomb (and the body) and, thus, put an end to this troublesome “sect” before it really got off the ground. This wrong tomb hypothesis offers no explanation for the subsequent actions of Christ’s enemies, the transformation of Jesus’ followers, or the rise of the Christian movement. It plays fast and loose with both facts and logic. There must be a better explanation. Look for examinations of other resurrection alternatives in future issues of Reasons.
Feedback“My ten-year-old aspiring paleontologist son, Daniel, had the opportunity to tell his teachers, classmates, and other parents about Reasons To Believe as part of a school project called ‘Wax Museum.’ Each student wrote a report, created a display, and, for the final presentation, impersonated the person of his or her choosing “With God’s guidance and his teacher’s blessing (plus some work on my part) Daniel’s report featured Hugh Ross. In front of ‘Wax Museum’ visitors, Daniel—as Dr. Ross, with an RTB cap covering his hair—spoke boldly about how science had led him to meet the God of the Bible and eventually to begin the RTB ministry. Daniel’s monologue was well received, and his teacher came to appreciate Dr. Ross’s testimony. “The conclusion of Daniel’s paper tells a lot about the benefit Daniel himself received in doing this project: ‘I admire the way he [Dr. Ross] is able to take what he knows about science and use it to tell others about God and the Bible. I hope one day to be able to do the same.’” Emi Bauer
Stewardship: Simply StatedWith our 22nd fiscal year just concluded, RTB is well into a new year of ministry. New outreach plans are underway, plans to enhance our resource delivery and expand our impact. We’re particularly eager to launch our new website, where you’ll be able to access many special features designed to equip and to teach. Amid all the new things developing in the coming months, one thing will not change. RTB does not draw operational support from an endowment, receives no federal funds, and relies on no benefactor to cover our financial needs. From the very beginning, RTB has depended on the generous gifts of individuals who understand the times, recognize our calling, and choose to stand with us. Rather than manufacture need or cry wolf to compel or increase giving, we strive to communicate our financial situation straightforwardly. Simply stated, we cannot and do not move forward in ministry without the support of people just like you—people who use our resources to grow in faith and courage, people who want to see RTB’s mission achieved in our world. |
