Light-work

Ain't No Scary Idol Gonna Break Me!

In a previous post, I talked about how modern technology could solve the age-old problem of dumb idols. Until now, a man might dress up a tree, call it his god, and start consulting it for guidance. There's just one problem, his idol is dumb! In the future, perhaps the near future, the "right hand man" of a charismatic world leader, will solve this problem by inventing the ultimate smart idol.

Here's a preview of his accomplishment. I have inserted in square brackets some descriptions that will help you sort out who's who. "And he [the right hand man] deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast [the charismatic Jesus hater], telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast [the charismatic Jesus hater] who had the wound of the sword and has come to life. And it was given to him [the right hand man] to give breath to the image of the beast [living representation of the Jesus hater], so that the image of the beast would even speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed" (Rev. 13:14-15).

Talk about a scary idol. This one doesn't just LOOK menacing, it IS menacing! It is sentient and  intelligent. It speaks! It is capable of using these endowments to discriminate between supporters and opponents of the charismatic Jesus hater AND can effect the execution of those opponents. Needless to say, most folks will "get religion" from an encounter with this bad boy. The religion they will be "getting" is fawning allegiance to the Jesus hater.

It is this understanding which helps us make sense of Revelation 15:2: "And I saw something like a sea of glass mixed with fire, and those who had been victorious over the beast and his image and the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, holding harps of God" (Rev. 15:2). There will a group of people who successfully oppose the living image's attempt to intimidate them. I have said it before, and will say it again: The overcomer has within him the power to discern that giving allegiance to the Jesus hater is the stupidest thing a man could do. The overcomer will be able to see through all the hype and PR that everyone else has bought into. He will stand firm in that conviction, even when a talking idol utters very real threats like, "Off with his head!"

It will be worth it: "And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" (Rev. 20:4).

Easy There, Big Fella!

On a recent trip to Atlanta, I went to the Fernbank Museum of Natural History for a chance to see Argentinosaurus. Named after the country where his bones were discovered, let's just call the big fella "the Argentine." Because staff from Fernbank had a part in his discovery, a complete set of skeletal casts was released to the museum. (His bones have remained in his native country. How thoughtful!)

This guy is BIG! At one hundred twenty three fit long, even with a wide angle lens, I couldn't get a single picture to do him justice. (If you look at the top left picture, can't you imagine him saying, "Is this a good angle for me? I'm not sure the light shows off my complexion. Can you get the people off the third story balcony, it kind of detracts!)

Check out this second shot to get a proper sense of scale. The "little guy" on the right is a Giganotosaurus, the largest meat eater, but even he is dwarfed by the Argentine. No photoshop magic has been applied to this picture - the people really are that small. Can you imagine a walk through the forest when a few of these are munching on conifers? Now I know how ants feel.

The exhibit is definitely compromised by all the evolutionary blather. Allow me to put the Argentine in proper perspective. This plant-eating giant was the product of marvelous intelligence, namely that of our Creator God. Here I was in a building dedicated to "understanding" the world with God factored out of the equation. Yet, in all of his gigantic glory, the Argentine was declaring the majesty of my God.

I recalled the words God spoke when He was reminding Job who's in charge: “Behold, Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron” (Job 40:15-18).

It is doubtful that the Argentine is the specific "Behemoth" mentioned in Job. But he definitely has a HUGE amount in common with Behemoth. God told job to look at Behemoth and remember, "I made him as I made you." So followed Job's lead, gazed in awe at the Argentine, and marveled at the greatness of my God who made him as He made me.

Could a Terminator Reinvent Idolatry?

The fourth installment of the Terminator movie series is scheduled for release this May. Although the storyline of each movie reflects slightly different time-lines, a computer with artificial intelligence that realizes self awareness is central to each plot. This is not the first time men have spun tales about "when good inventions go bad." Frankenstein fits the profile, as does HAL in Space Odyssey, and a host of lesser lights from sci-fi movies screened during the cold war. But the Terminator series (and a TV spin-off, The Sarah Conner Chronicles) has made the possibility of men creating sentient beings seem believable.

Should the believable become real, a key stumbling block to idolatry would be removed. In yesterday's post, Idols are Dumb, we observed that the attraction of idolatry (which is self-worship) is compromised by the fact that an idol can't speak. So, when a man build's an idol to sing his praises, it bites that said idol has nothing to say!

What if a man could construct an image that speaks? And what if that image could declare the praises of his creator? And what if that image could come up with other witty things to say based upon its superior intelligence? An idol that speaks and is smart - what would men do if they beheld and heard such a thing? I am confident that virtually everyone would be totally smitten by the thing.

Idols are Dumb!

In the book of Revelation, we are introduced to a future form of idolatry. Some of the predictions in John's apocalyptic vision make sense to the modern mind. But idol worship? Surely thoughtful men with an appreciation for science are beyond the appeal of idolatry. Idols are for superstitious souls who imagine misfortune as a sign the gods are angry. How is it that idolatry could make a big comeback in man's future?

Let's be clear about two things. First, the spirit of idolatry is found in self-worship. Isaiah got to the heart of the matter:

    Their land has also been filled with idols;
    They worship the work of their hands,
    That which their fingers have made (Isa. 2:8).

All idolatry is a form of self admiration in which one praises himself by praising his work. A man's accomplishment could be as simple as a stone image or something vastly more sophisticated. But regardless of an idol's form, idol worship is always self-worship.

Second, all idols have a down-side. They can't talk! The OT prophet Habakkuk found the fact that idols are dumb more than a little amusing:

"What profit is the idol when its maker has carved it, or an image, a teacher of falsehood? For its maker trusts in his own handiwork when he fashions speechless idols. Woe to him who says to a piece of wood, ‘Awake!’ To a mute stone, ‘Arise!’ And that is your teacher? Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all inside it. But the Lord is in His holy temple. Let all the earth be silent before Him” (Hab. 2:18-20).

Men should be quiet and listen when God talks! But idols don't, so men have to do all the talking. This is definitely the downside to idolatry - a man ends up muttering to himself. The appeal of idolatry (self-praise) would surely go up if idols weren't mute. This is precisely what makes the "new idolatry" of Revelation an amazing innovation. Get ready for "idolatry reinvented." More tomorrow!

Obama, McCain, and A Defining Issue

Last night I watched the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency. Here's a link to a summary on the event found at Marketwatch. I found the two interviews of Obama and McCain (one hour each) very helpful. Since they were both asked the same questions, the format allowed for easy comparison.

Abortion is a defining issue. So I was very interested in the answers of the two candidates to this question: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Here is Obama's response: "Whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective, or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade." He added, "I am pro-choice, not because I'm pro-abortion, but because I don't think women make these decisions casually."

My take on Obama's position is that he doesn't feel qualified as a scientist or theologian to articulate an opinion about when a baby gets human rights. His response is essentially an "I don't know." His second statement is more than a little unsettling. He seems to be saying that we should allow women the right to choose abortion because they don't make that choice lightly. Would this kind of logic serve our society well as it pertains to other activities? I am not trying to be ridiculous here, just trying to get at his logic. Would we respect the rights of one man to murder another because the murderer agonized over the decision to pull the trigger?

McCain's response to the same question was neither similarly nuanced nor hesitant. Warren: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" McCain: "At the moment of conception." McCain added, "I have a twenty-five year pro-life record . . . and as President of the United States, I will be a pro-life President and this presidency will have pro-life policies."

I like the sound of that. His record suggests it is more than just sound.

Perspective

Last night I watched In the Shadow of the Moon. Yes, I like documentaries and have always been fascinated by the challenge to "put a man on the moon." But, from my perspective, this Ron Howard masterpiece is a "must see" for everyone, not just Apollo junkies. It's not about the hardware. As the process is recounted, it is graced with the comments and reflections of the men who went to the moon.

These men had the rare opportunity to look at earth from another celestial body. They saw our world from a truly unique perspective. Their reflections on what it was like help us see life differently. Check it out - you will gain some great perspective on God and the world He has given us.

Where has the time gone?

Houston, we have a problem! If the word "day" in chapter one of Genesis refers to a 24 hour day, and if the genealogies of Genesis are complete or anything close to complete, then creation week occurred several thousand years ago. But there is tons of evidence (literally!) which suggests that earth is old: The scientific consensus is that earth has been around for over four billion years. So, is earth recent or old? Science and the Bible can't both be right, can they?

There are two ways to remove (or diminish) this conflict between science and the Bible. One involves the gap theory. There is variety among gap theorists about where they see some missing time. But they all agree that time is missing, namely, a significant period about which nothing (or next to nothing) has been recorded in the Bible. The popularity of this view increased when the Scofield Reference Bible successfully promoted it.

I admit to some skepticism for the mere fact that this proposal is so convenient. It has been discerned "in the nick of time" to rescue the biblical creationist from his discomfort at sounding like a "flat earth" advocate, someone with a blind and unassailable insistence on what amounts to nothing more than scientific clap-trap. Now, a gap proponent can have his 24 hour days and old earth, too. Nice!

Let's give this theory a fair shake. The most popular variety proposes a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  Here's how it reads:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light (Gen. 1:1-3).

A gap theorist would say that Gen. 1:3 is the hack mark where the 144 hour clock starts ticking. Verse one describes the original creation that occurred PRIOR to the "recreation" that occurred in 144 hours. There are lots of speculations and surmisings that attempt to connect the dots. One of the more popular connects the fall of Satan to this period of pre-history. It is suggested that his rebellion against God resulted in some sort of cataclysm which rendered the original creation "formless and void." Despite all the huff and puff, I remain unconvinced that this view can travel from "possibility" to "fact."

It is true that there are some missing minutes in the Bible. A dramatic example is found in Isaiah 61:2.  Between the first and second line, there is a time gap spanning two thousand years. How do I know this? I wouldn't, if Jesus hadn't read the passage and pointed this out in Luke 4:16ff. This benefit is not available for "the gap" in Genesis 1:1-3. There is no clear statement from God that an otherwise invisible gap is embedded there. Without this, I cannot say with CERTAINTY that such a gap exists, although I can allow for the possibility.

There are some grammatical issues with the gap theory, but I APPRECIATE the fact that this view takes the Bible seriously. It is not trying to meddle with its language to achieve some forced compliance with what science is saying. It treats a "day" as a day.

There are several passages in the Bible that tell us about pre-history, passages that discuss conditions before space and time. Here's one in John 17:5. Jesus and the Father were both there before space and time, so it is not surprising to overhear it mentioned in their conversation. Jesus requests, “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5). Jesus was there before the world came into existence. He KNOWS how things came about. I wish He would tell me more, but I must trust Him in this as in all things. I must trust Him that He has told me what I NEED to know.

All In a Day's Work - for God! Pt. 2 of 2

Watch a world class illusionist and you will find yourself asking, "How did he do that?" The illusionist will smile in smug silence, unwilling to reveal his secrets. When God created our world from nothing, it transcended the grandest illusion. This was the real thing and it went beyond breathtaking. Unlike the illusionist, God has been quite forthcoming about how He did it. God's diary of the process is available in Genesis 1:1-2:3.

At face value, this account describes a series of 24 hour days of creative activity followed by a seventh day of inactivity. If God created the world in 144 hours, and the genealogies of Genesis are comprehensive or without major gaps, then this world began a few thousand years ago. There would be little reason to think otherwise except for a preponderance of physical evidence suggesting the earth is billions (if not millions) of years old. So one of the ways to ease the tension of this conflict between the Bible and science has been to reappraise the biblical account. In this second look, bible students have found what seem like credible reasons for the "days" of Genesis chapter one to be understood as "ages" or "epochs" spanning millions of years. Will this dog hunt?

There are several reasons why "day" in the creation account of Genesis should be understood as a literal 24 hour day.

1. "Day" is here used with a number. It is true that "day" in a prophetic passage like Zech 12:3 refers to something other than a 24 hour day. But this figurative usage for "day" never occurs when a number modifies it.
2. The phrase "evening and morning" seems irrelevant to anything other than a literal day. In Dan. 8:14 , "2,300 evenings and mornings" is even used as a synonym for "2,300 days." If "days" are ages, how can we meaningfully attach the terms "morning" and "evening" to segments of such days?
   
3. In Genesis 20:11 & 31:17, God is doing the talking. He says that He created the world in "six days." In every instance where day is used in the plural, it refers to 24 hour days. (There is one possible exception in Hosea 6:2 - but this may be attributed to the dynamics of Hebrew poetry.)

There is some other evidence, but I wouldn't weight it too highly: First, Adam's naming of the animals only seems a feasible accomplishment if we are dealing with 24 hour days. Second, the days of creation are the pattern for Israel's week of work (six days) followed by rest (seventh day). Creation week's function as a pattern is strengthened if it consists of seven literal days.

There is no doubt in my mind that the language of Genesis one is descriptive of 24 hour days. Yes, yes, I know this raises many questions. Patience, Grasshopper - all in good time. For now, there is something poignant to be learned here and I don't want you to miss it. In science's reconstruction of earth's history, man is rendered a minuscule and late-coming dot on the vast time-line of history. I love this line from Derek Kidner, "The scientific account of the universe...overwhelms us with statistics that reduce our apparent significance to vanishing-point" (Genesis, p. 57).

The biblical account treats the grand work of creation as a mere prologue before we get down to the real business at hand, filling the planet with a people who will rule it for God. This puts things in their proper perspective. God is willing to tell us how He did it when He created our world. But now it's time to tell us what we most need to know, to tell us about sin, sacrifice, redemption, and restoration. It may not be the big bang. But it IS the big story and something God says we MUST understand.

All In a Day's Work - for God! Pt. 1 of 2

Did God create the world in six twenty-four hour days? How do I know, I wasn't there? No one was. Even my (and your) great-great grandfather, Adam, didn't come on the scene until 90% of the creative work was completed. So our only reliable first-hand field report is going to come from God. He is well-qualified to file this account. He wasn't just THERE. He was the One making it all happen. So when He tells me what went down in "creation week," I can take His summary as gospel.

Had he chosen to keep it all a secret, I would be consigned to grope for the truth on my own. But He has not been silent! A comprehensive overview of the process has been provided in Gen. 1:1-2:3. God zooms in to allow us a close-up view of day six in Gen. 2:4-25. And there are numerous references to creation week scattered throughout the Bible in passages like Job 38:1-11. Obviously God WANTS us to know what He did. He hasn't told us all we would LIKE to know, but He has fully supplied what we NEED to know.

This doesn't mean God is opposed to our doing some additional study. He has provided an unassailable  framework for understanding creation in the biblical account, but invites us to "do science" to supplement this understanding. The thesis of Privileged Planet (book and DVD both highly recommended) is intriguing - earth has been ideally designed and positioned in the Milky Way to serve as a celestial observation platform. From it's transparent gas atmosphere to its position in galactic "open space" - it is as if God wants us to check out what He has done. Here is one caveat: The biblical account of creation provides guard-rails to protect us when "good science goes bad." The quality, purity, and reliability of information from the Bible is superior to what science can deliver.

Some may not like this, thinking that science must be "unfettered from religious presuppositions." This notion is at the heart of the objections to intelligent design. It is OK to examine a piece of flint and declare, "This is an arrowhead made by an ancient hunter." It is NOT OK to examine our planet and declare, "This is the work of an intelligent designer." The first statement is about science, but the latter is treated as a religious statement and, therefore, unsuited for scientific examination. This is the kind of compartmentalization that drives me bonkers.

The man who believes there is some great divide between science and the Bible and who refuses to allow the Bible to provide guidance to his scientific studies is in a "catch-22." The more his studies lead him to the truth, the closer he gets to the God of truth whom He wants to avoid. Such a man will not be helped by understanding the biblical account of creation.

But for those who understand that the pursuit of truth is best left unconstrained by this kind of compartmentalized thinking, we can learn much by asking, "What does the Bible say about how the world came into existence?" To do this, we must understand how language works as an instrument of communication. Some critics of a twenty-four hour day viewpoint think it relies on what they term a "literal" or "wooden literal" approach to interpretation. "Literal" interpretation sounds like, and "wooden-literal" interpretation undoubtedly is, an approach to Scripture that does not recognize metaphors and figures of speech. A "wooden-literal" interpretive method would not recognize this statement from Jesus as a figure of speech called hyperbole: “If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you” (Matt. 18:9). Before we start gouging eyeballs (creepy!), might I propose an alternative?

I find it helpful to distinguish between literal interpretation and normal interpretation. Normal interpretation proposes that normal language behaves, well, normally. (This is the kind of profound insight you have come to expect at Light-work! Never underestimate our power to discern the obvious!) Normal interpretation treats the language of the Bible as a normal mode of human communication, one which, at times, is intended to be understood literally. At other times, it may employ a figure of speech  or a literary device like an extended metaphor. (The extended metaphor is one of my personal favorites - I probably rely on it way too much, like the two buses in the previous post.)

The key to interpreting normal language is identifying the literary markers which tell us when something is supposed to be understood literally, when it is to be understood figuratively, or when it is a joke. So when we look at Genesis one, we must pay attention to words and the connections between them. But we also must pay attention to literary markers which tell us if the author wants to be taken literally.

A Tale of Two Buses

What is Genesis one telling us? And what is it not? This is an interpretive basket of snakes, and I don't particularly care for snakes. But we seem to have tumped the basket over yesterday, so we might as well devote some time to snake sorting.

I want to work up to this question: What biblical basis is there for the days of creation to be understood as twenty-four hour days? Jumping right to this question will probably be counter-productive unless we first deal with some pre-conceptions and assumptions.

First, this issue is not central to a man's salvation. A man is saved by trusting in the accomplishment of Christ on the cross. From the Bible's point of view, this is a work of divine power that dwarfs even the creation of a universe. To create the universe is mere word-work for God. He speaks and it comes into existence. In Ps. 8:3, the heavens are called God's "finger work." To say this is not to diminish the greatness of this creative endeavor. But it must be put into proper perspective.

Our salvation required the death of God's own Son. Here is "difficulty" at the highest order of magnitude for God. The greatest triumph is captured in Jesus' exclamation on the cross, "It is finished!" So when a man is trusting in Jesus for his salvation, He is believing in the greatest miracle of all time. I am not a big fan of evangelism that depends on convincing someone of "twenty-four hour days of creation." If he receives salvation in Jesus, then he has already affirmed God's ability to do lessor things, like create a universe. All He lacks is God's disclosure of the mechanics of how it was accomplished. God can handle this in His good time.

Second, we must recognize the difference between the scientific method and biblical interpretation as means to understanding the truth. Science and the Bible are like two buses traveling in opposite directions from very different starting points. In the case of the Bible, it represents a bus traveling from truth to man. The Bible bus comes from God who IS truth; It has Him as its point of origin; it is God breathed. So it delivers to man what is pure, concentrated, and reliable. It is true we must interpret it, that is, identify exactly what it teaches. But when we can say - This is what the Bible teaches; this it what it says happened - we are getting truth straight from the source.

In the case of science, it represents a bus traveling from man to truth. The scientific method involves the pursuit of an elusive target. One seeks truth by gathering evidence through observation and experimentation. This is followed by proposing a hypothesis to account for the evidence. A good hypothesis explains all the evidence and seems a worthy candidate for the title, "truth." But it's claim is always tenuous. New evidence (that doesn't fit the theory) can pop up without notice. Now it's back to the drawing board for more tests in the relentless pursuit of truth.

This challenge is made more difficult (IMPOSSIBLE?) by a filter that the modern scientist uses to "prescreen" his data. Scientific "objectivity" has come to mean that the scientist factors God out of the equation in order to limit his inquiry to only the physical world. This creates "destination dissonance" for the science bus. If God is the truth, then the closer the science bus gets to truth, the closer it gets to what must be avoided. Passengers on the science bus are rigorously attempting to go somewhere that they tenaciously believe must be avoided. Sounds like being pulled in two directions more than a "greyhound adventure!"

It isn't supposed to be this way. For example, David observed, The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands (Ps. 19:1). David sees no disconnect between scientific observation and theological implications. He is convinced that study of the nature and scale of the cosmos will propel us toward a better understanding of God. God Himself invites this kind of inquiry. He told Job, "Listen to this, O Job, Stand and consider the wonders of God" (Job 37:14). God is commanding Job to do some science. Set up an observation station, run some tests, evaluate the data - and when you are done, allow your observations to propel your apprehension of who I am! God has it right (as always). And He says there is no essential conflict between robust and rigorous study of His created world and understanding Himself.

So we do not have to be afraid of the data. Let's roll up our sleeves, put on our safety goggles, and look at what the created world tells us about what God has done. But let's recognize that whatever is on the Bible bus comes direct from the source and can give us useful coordinates and road markers to guide the travels of our science bus.

Mammoths and Hippos and Crocs, Oh My!

KB writes: "I have often wondered where we got the idea of the ice age. I work at a public high school and the ice age is mentioned in science as if it is truth.  It is not called a 'theory'.  ...I would like to know if the ice age is mentioned or even slightly implied in the Bible." She also asks, "...in the Book of Job some kind of creature is mentioned as a Leviathan, and Behemoth, what do you think they are?"

Great questions! The concept of an ice age is largely based upon the study of geology, although there is some chemical and fossil evidence, too. I assume from your email address that you live in the Pacific NW. Geologists have discerned considerable evidence of activity consistent with an "ice age scenario" in numerous features surrounding Puget Sound in WA. Most geologists would discern more than one significant advance of ice into the area. I have personally done field studies of some of this evidence as a geology student, and the observable data is quit striking.

For example, a valley carved by glacial ice has a distinctive "u" shape - these features can be observed in areas that have no current glacial activity. Significant advance of ice and glacial activity is the most reasonable explanation for this data, to date. I can understand why someone would present this as "truth" because there does not seem to be any viable alternative explanation for the physical evidence. So even though it is a theory, it is the preferred theory and therefore one people choose as their front-runner for the title, "truth."

There is some evidence which doesn't seem to square with this theory. For example, the remains of  woolly mammoths have been found in a state that suggests they were "flash frozen." Would the slow advance of ice produce such evidence? If not, does the theory need some modification to better account for the evidence?

Let's assume for the moment that the geological data does support the theory that our planet has gone through some significant climatic changes that resulted in an "ice age." Your question (and mine) is, "How would such a view square with what the Bible teaches?" Here are several biblical guard rails that should enter into our answer.

1. There is no event mentioned in the Bible that is described in terms that sound like an "ice age." This does not mean there is a "contradiction" between an "ice age" theory and the Bible - only that it is not specifically mentioned.
2. However, there are some VERY intriguing statements found in Genesis. In Gen. 1:6-10, we learn that God created two major bodies of water, only one of which became oceans or the "seas." Where is the other? In Gen. 2:5-6, we learn that plant hydration was accomplished by a mist which would rise from the earth. "Rain" was not a climactic feature of the world at this time. So the "above ground" body of water produced no rain. And the "below ground" body of water produced the "mist." In Gen. 7:11, we learn that the source of water for the flood came from two sources, the fountains of the great deep and the floodgates of the sky. This much seems clear, the world before the flood had a significantly different set of climactic dynamics than the world we know.
3. If this pre-flood world was more like a giant greenhouse, and if the flood occurred as a result of the collapse of this greenhouse, then dramatic climactic change is something we would expect. It is POSSIBLE that the mechanism for the flood had the effect of (among other things) producing an ice-age type of event.
4. Modern geology and the biblical account of creation do have a fairly clear and serious disagreement about the time-table of these events. Geologists propose that there have been four major ice ages, the most RECENT of which began about 40 million years ago. There is no small debate among students of the Bible about whether the "days" of creation represent literal 24 hour periods or "epochs." The language that is used in the biblical account seems to me (if not to everyone) to clearly describe a sequence of six 24 hour days. So even if there are some gaps in the genealogies of Genesis, this understanding of the Bible suggests that the flood occurred ONLY a few thousand years ago, not 40 million years ago. Any significant advance of ice associated with the flood, by this reckoning, would be a VERY recent occurrence. So two very different views of an "ice-age" timetable are in play here.

Bottom line: The Bible doesn't say anything that denies the possibility of some sort of "ice age" type events. But I do not see how to reconcile science's proposed time-table for the history of our planet with what a "face-value" reading of the the Bible seems to say about the same topic. Some Bible students have eased this tension by interpreting Genesis 1-2 in a way that allows it to describe events that occurred over a greater span of time. I have not found their analysis of the language of Genesis 1-2 convincing.

Leviathan is the name of a creature mentioned in several OT passages. The name means "coiled" or "twisted." The longest description is found in Job 41, where most scholars think the description fits the crocodile. There are several statements - "out of his mouth go burning torches" - that sound like a dragon. But these could be metaphorical statements, something Hebrew poetry is famous for.

The Hebrew word, behema, is used nine times in the OT, usually meaning simply "beasts" or "cattle." But in Job 40:15, "behemoth" seems to be a very particular "beast" whose description matches what we would expect of a hippopotamus.

Is faith just the product of computers made of meat?

Once again, science is asserting its supremacy. We are being told that our religious sensibilities are just biology. Are they? We asked one of our esteemed Light-work partners, Dr. Doug Matthews of Baylor University, to help us cut through the fluff.

LW - Give us an overview of what is going on here.

Dr. D - The perception that love, religion and morality are artifacts of biology is a conclusion that mainstream science and the popular press consistently promote. News conferences featuring scientists in starched, white lab coats are frequently used to advocate the belief that naturalistic mechanisms explain what appears to make a person uniquely different; that is, our ability to love, our ability to worship God and our ability to discern right from wrong. They conclude that human cognition, consciousness, and religious beliefs are due to natural biological mechanisms and are not due to some non-natural, external factors.

LW - Can you give us a couple examples of this kind of thinking?

Dr. D - Eric Kandel, a prominent neuroscientist, is the lead editor of an influential textbook titled Principles of Neural Science.  Kandel writes the opening chapter and therein outlines a strategy by which science, particularly neuroscience, might explain the human mind, what I might think of as the human soul. Kandel writes: “The next and even more challenging step in this unifying process within biology, which we outline in this book, will be the unification of the study of behavior - the science of the mind - and neural science, the science of the brain. This last step will allow us to achieve a unified scientific approach to the study of behavior. Such a comprehensive approach depends on the view that all behavior is the result of brain function.”

Kandel concludes this opening chapter by exclaiming, “Indeed, the excitement evident in neural science today is based on the conviction that at last we have in hand the proper tools to explore the extraordinary organ of the mind, so that we can eventually fathom the biological principles that underlie human cognition”.

LW - So check me to see if I understand what's going on here. A biblically informed understanding of man sees him as both material ("body") and immaterial ("spirit"). Kandel is proposing that the immaterial (the "mind" in his terminology) can be reduced to mere matters of brain function. So we are nothing more than computers made of meat.

Dr. D - Bingo! I find the two quotations disheartening but also informative as to why many scientists use naturalistic causes to explain all things human. In the second statement, Kandel restates the principle that the mind can by explained solely by naturalistic causes; to completely understand the mind we have to believe that all behavior is dependent on brain function.

LW - What is your critique of this approach?

Dr. D - For me as a scientist who believes that God infused something different into people (Genesis 1:26), the conclusion that everything “human” can be explained by the laws of science seems very simplistic. I also find this type of science arrogant. First, the conclusion that naturalism can explain the human mind and (by extension) love, religion and morality, is predetermined by the initial premise. It's circular logic. Second, the initial premise is a statement of faith; the scientist is saying, "I believe that ONLY naturalistic causes explain the human mind." The faith required for this statement is greater than my faith in a God who created the human mind. Finally, such an initial premise raises the specter of an agenda in science, that its interests lie only in conclusions that support its beliefs—that the mind is nothing but an artifact of biology.

Prior to the enlightment period, scientists believed science was a tool to investigate God’s creation. I suggest that science return to its foundations and accept the fact that we are investigating a world created by an Agent beyond our comprehension. Love, religion and morality likely exist in ways science will not completely understand. These moments of scientific wonder should be opportunities to glorify God and not make simplistic faith statements such as “we’ve yet to develop the scientific tools to explain the phenomenon”.   

Scientists who buy into Kandel’s framework only see naturalistic explanations for “the soul” of humans because they’ve filtered out all the data that leads toward any other conclusion. This might be a great recipe for popular press conferences and sound bites that are served up on the evening news, but it does not make for authentic or robust science that seeks to explore the grandeur and breadth of creation.

God's Stained Glass Sunsets

It's bad enough to be sleeping in church.  It's especially bad when you're the preacher!  Yea, that was me, but I have a very reasonable explanation.  We were staying overnight at the "Old Church House" in Oakland, TN.  James and Louis Maddox have converted the Oakland Methodist Church building (originally built in 1927) into a fantastic bed and breakfast.  Our bedroom was once part of the chapel and included three stunning stained glass windows that soared to the 12' ceilings.  During the day, ordinary sunlight was transformed into something truly extraordinary.  

As evening neared, we enjoyed another work of art in which the artist's medium was light.  This was one of those rare sunsets in which the whole sky was ablaze with glory.  The clouds were just in the right place to first be cast in yellows and golds, then oranges and reds, and finish with blues and violets.

The sunset was God's grand stained glass window.  His was not a static display but an animated work of art as clouds moved and changed shape, as one color was replaced by another, and as the crimson disk of our sun deepened in color and grew in size before its departure.  This was not a picture, but a light show.  I thank the Producer for a great performance from all His troupe.  It reminds me that God is interested in making things beautiful.  Even me!  Even you!