The Third Yom

There is no question that the Hebrew word yom, translated as day in Genesis 1 and many other places in the Old Testament, can mean either a literal 24 hour day or an indeterminate period—such as an “age.”

Young Earth Creationists (YECs) do not dispute this—but they argue that every time yom is used in an ordinal sense: first day, second day, etc., it refers to a literal day. There are, YECs claim, no exceptions.

For example, in this AiG post, point 3.a.i, uber-YEC Ken Ham, writes, "Yom + ordinal number (used 410 times) always indicates an ordinary day [i.e. a 24-hour period]."

Even if Ham and other YECs are correct, that all instances of yom with an ordinal number outside of Genesis 1 refer to 24-hour days, it does not prove that the use of yom with ordinal numbers in Genesis 1 must refer to 24-hour days. Perhaps it is just more likely to have occasion to use first day, second day, etc. than first age, second age. The use in Genesis is then a rarely needed construction rather than a violation of ancient Hebrew grammar. It is simply more likely that we should discuss a sequence of days rather than ages—indeed Genesis 1 may be the only place where, even potentially, an ordinal sequence of ages appears. I can’t think of another in the Old Testament.

In places where it is conceded that yom is indeterminate—such as in the "day of the Lord"—the passages are speaking only of one yom of the Lord. We wouldn’t expect them to read “The first day of the Lord” or “The first and only day of the Lord.”

Nevertheless, if I were a YEC, I’d probably bring up the “ordinal” usage argument, not as proof but as evidence.

Which brings me to to my point.

In Hosea, we read:

¹“Come, let us return to the LORD;
for he has torn us, that he may heal us;
he has struck us down, and he will bind us up.
² After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him. (Hosea 6:1-2)

In verse 2, the word yom (day) is used with an ordinal number—the third day. Yet the common interpretation of this passage is both as a Messianic prophesy and the expectation of a long, indeterminate period of affliction and suffering for Israel (e.g., see the commentaries by John Calvin and Matthew Henry).

So how do YECs reconcile this? I am sure they do, but I cannot find it. I hope someone can provide some additional information.

In addition to information on how YECs explain Hosea 6:2, I have another question for YECs and Hebrew scholars: if the Old Testament did have need to describe an ordinal sequence of ages, what word would it use in place of yom? I'm not asking because I don't think there is an answer. I'm asking because I don't know the answer.

Lesson 3: Deity of Christ (Part 3/3)

(This is based on John Gerstner’s Primer on the Deity of Christ from a compilation of his primers in the book Primitive Theology. I am using Primitive Theology for my Sunday School class. There is a growing list of links on the left for the posts for this class.

Unique Mutual Knowledge Attests to Jesus’ Divinity

In chapter 11 of Matthew we read in verse 27:

No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son (Matt 11:27)

Since saved people, at least in some sense, know God—and since Jesus’ disciples, at the very least, likewise knew Jesus, it is clear that this statement refers to unique knowledge. Jesus has a unique knowledge of the Father, and the Father has a unique knowledge of the Son. How is that possible? The simplest explanation is, once again, that Jesus is God. Even if Jesus were “just” an angel, then he would presumably not have a unique knowledge of God—for there are, as we know, many angels.

Once again we have the allusion to two parts of the Godhead—once again we have support for the trinity without even mentioning the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Claims His deity in the Great Commission

At the very end of Matthew, Christ proclaims the great commission:

¹⁸Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Matt 28:18-20)

Note that it is not the case that Christ is, at this point, risen that speaks of His deity, for God can (and will) raise men as well. Nor is it that He has been given authority, for God could bestow authority on whomever He chooses. What speaks of Christ’s divinity is the Trinitarian reference. His disciples would know from his earlier teaching that he meant himself when he refers to “the Son”, and here he brackets himself between the Father and the Holy Spirit. If He were not God, then He just spoke blasphemy.

Now at the end of the great commission we see another testimony to Christ’s divinity. If Christ were but an exalted creature He could say nothing stronger than: and I expect to be with you always, to the very end of the age. Instead he speaks with a certainty and authority that comes from a deific omnipotence.

Jesus Asserts His Divinity When He denies it

Many have used Jesus’ dialogue with the rich young ruler as evidence of His denial of His own deity:

¹⁸A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" ¹⁹"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. ²⁰You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'" (Luke 8:18-20)

When Jesus says “Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone,” it would appear that Jesus is denying that He is God. However, when the totality of Jesus’ teaching on His own deity is considered, another interpretation becomes probable. What is likely happening is that Jesus is probing the ruler as to his view of him (Jesus). The clue is that Jesus phrases it in the form of a question. He did not say: don’t call me good, only God is good. Instead Jesus, in effect says: Since you call me good, do you not realize that I am God, since only God is good? Further indication comes from the fact that, if Jesus is not God, we would not expect him to deny His deity here, in as much as the ruler simply calls him a good teacher—which is certainly a common enough compliment that it would not set the stage for Christ to deny. If the ruler called Him God, then (if He weren’t God) the stage would be dramatically set for Him to “set the record straight.”

We see more. Notice what the ruler asked: What must I do to inherit eternal life? And notice Jesus’ answer:

When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Luke 8:22)

Christ tells the ruler that for eternal life, the ruler must follow Him. This statement is rational only for God. Again, imagine a pastor stating that if you want eternal life, you need to “follow me”.

Summary

From Lesson 2, we now assume the inerrancy and inspiration of scripture. So we have confidence that scriptural statements about Jesus and by Jesus are reliable. Although Jesus never made the definitive statement: I am God, many of His statements individually and without question the weight of them collectively make it clear that He attested to His own divinity. To assess a statement of Jesus, as to whether it attests to His deity, we often used the test: would what Jesus said be blasphemy if it were the words of a mere creature?

Why didn’t Jesus make a simple declarative statement? We can only speculate that it was for the same reason He spoke in parables (Matt. 13:10). It is also comforting to note that were Jesus a fraud, and/or if his history is a fable, we would have expected him to openly declare his deity—or for a fictional declaration to be added to the myth.

My View on Biological ID

For a couple of reasons, including a comment by Benji in the post below, I thought I would make clear my views on biological Intelligent Design—or what usually gets to go by the simple “ID” moniker.

The truth is I am somewhat ambivalent about the evolution vs. ID debate.

I freely admit that I have only gut feelings with absolutely no scientific expertise in the field of (biological) ID or evolutionary biology. That said, I think irreducible complexity, as I understand it, is interesting, worth studying, and worthy of discussion. I do not know if the examples given (e.g., the bacterial flagellum) truly represent discontinuities in the sense that there are no plausible evolutionary pathways postulated—either now or ever. I simply don’t know—although I would be nervous about staking my reputation on the claim that you’ll never be able to explain this.

So, I am more or less a lurker in the debate. I root for team Behe, but I have nothing to say or contribute.

In terms of the work of Bill Dembski, I have even less to say, and I don’t mean that in a disrespectful way—not in the least. Again, I am working from gut feelings. I have never read his theories. There are many theories that I have never bothered to learn simply from lack of interest. It has been my, once again, gut instinct that it is doubtful that one could construct a rigorous mathematics that could reliably detect design—with little or no false positives or negatives. Perhaps I am wrong—but not being interested in evolution, I have never felt motivated to dig into the details of either Professor Behe’s or Professor Dembski’s work—even though I appreciate their efforts.

As for evolution—as I said I am ambivalent. I have written before that I think theistic evolution—in which God intervened as necessary to ensure His sovereign plan was not thwarted, is an acceptable option for a Christian. In this view, in some manner, God specially created Adam and Eve—they were truly and historically the first humans. This form of theistic evolution, I have argued in the past—is in fact a type of ID—it has God designing through genetic engineering.

Am I a theistic evolutionist or a “classic” IDer? I really couldn’t say.

I do have the following opinion. I think the big money issue is not evolution but abiogenesis. I strongly support research into the origins of life, and am confident that it will continue to befuddle our best efforts. Compared to the question of how life arose in such a short time, evolution is, to me, boring bookkeeping.

As for the schools, teach evolution. Even if you believe evolution is wrong, the next generation needs to understand it if only to be in position to refute it.

Pi = 3

The next “proof” that purportedly demonstrates that the Bible is scientifically unreliable comes from the description of the furnishings of Solomon’s Temple. We read:

Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference. (1 Kings 7:23)

Aha! A circumference of thirty and a diameter of ten means pi =30/10 =3. Either Solomon’s Temple was built in Indiana or we have a serious problem.

Or do we?

(The sea, by the way, was a humongous brass basin almost certainly used by the priests for ceremonial washings.)

Notice again the same fallacy as in the “bats are birds” complaint. The underlying assumption is that the ancients were morons. (This assumption is usually reserved for ancient Hebrews alone. The Aztecs, for example, are assumed to be cultural and scientific geniuses who knew the secrets of the Super String landscape, which they enjoyed discussing over high protein meals derived from their own species.)

Any civilization building anything circular would have known that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is slightly greater than 3. The Mesopotamians of a much earlier era used the approximate value of 25/8 = 3.125. The Egyptians may have had a much better value long before Solomon’s Temple. Here we see the assumption of stupidity: The Hebrews either didn’t know what their neighbors knew or they did know but didn’t bother to put accurate information into their sacred writings, in spite of its potential effect of weakening claims regarding the veracity of the holy words.

Not that any of that matters, because what is provided in the Bible is a description (“He made”), not a blueprint (“Makest Thou”).

There are several possible explanations—each one could stand alone but all may contribute to a certain extent.

The simplest explanation is technological. It was not possible to cast a brass object of such size in the shape of a perfect circle. So if one intended, roughly, to give its size using the (redundant) parameters of a circle—circumference and diameter, there would already be built into the description an error—given that the object was only approximately circular.

So the simplest explanation is that we are being given a rough description in terms of approximate dimensions of an imperfect shape.



However, even if we assume that the sea was a perfect circle, there is no problem. For even if it was perfectly circular, it was not infinitely thin.

The figure on the left shows a scale drawing, assuming the precise measurements as provided. To put things in everyday perspective, we have converted from cubits to feet using the relationship that 1 cubit is about 18 inches. The problem is that the given diameter of 10 cubits (or a radius L of 5 cubits) extends beyond a circle with circumference 30 cubits, which has a radius of R = 4.77 cubits, by, as shown, an amount Δ. A simple calculation shows that Δ ≈ 4.1 inches.

But what if the sea had some thickness? And what if, as in the artist’s conception shown below, it was even flared at the rim? Then the 10 cubits could refer to the “outside” distance across, giving us information on its total size, while the circumference could be the inner circumference, telling us about the sea’s capacity.

Is this plausible? Let’s continue on with the biblical passage, just after where the dimensions are provided, and look at further descriptive details:

²⁴ Under its brim were gourds, for ten cubits, compassing the sea all around. The gourds were in two rows, cast with it when it was cast. ²⁵ It stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east. The sea was set on them, and all their rear parts were inward. ²⁶ Its thickness was a handbreadth, and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily. It held two thousand baths. (1 Kings 7:24-26)

In verse 26 we are told that its thickness was a handbreadth, which fits nicely with the value of Δ ≈ 4.1 inches. We are also told that the brim was like the brim of a cup, which is consistent with the conceptual drawing. Either or both of these effects renders the criticism, which is based on a infinitely thin perfect circle, meaningless. The numbers given are perfectly compatible, even with a literal reading, as long as verse 26 in addition to verse 23, is taken into account.

Finally, although it need not be invoked in this case, it is also known that eastern writing of the time was numerically imprecise—we often see this in biblical writings through the use of rounded numbers—for example in discussing Job’s possessions. This potential mitigating factor, that the writers of that era (biblical or not) treated numbers differently than we do, along with the fact that they also treated quotes differently (as faithful to the content of someone’s statement but not necessarily the precise wording) are two inconvenient (for our critics) established truths that they label as copouts. As I mentioned in the previous post, other off-limits methods to counter their claims include arguing on the basis of figure of speech, hyperbole, translation error, or proper context. For their claims regarding biblical inconsistency with science to hold water they cannot relax their unspoken assumption that the ancient Hebrews were idiots and their demand that all contested passages be evaluated, not just hyper-literally, but also as if they were written using modern style and practices.

WARNING: Extreme Geek Post

I bought a new calculator for the first time in ages. Like all really cool people, I prefer HP Reverse Polish Notation (RPN) calculators. I bought the 33s. There aren't many options—RPN is fast going the way of the manual transmission. (Although, naturally, my orange car has a stick.)

Mostly I am pleased, but I do have five complaints.

1) You can actually operate it in algebraic mode—using the ENTER key as an equals sign. Blasphemy!

2) Made in China. Sigh.

3) The left/right function keys are teal and purple. What were they thinking?

4) It doesn't have that indestructible feeling of the old HPs.

5) The ENTER button should be double-sized.

It is still great geek-fun to hand someone requesting a calculator an HP RPN type and watch them struggle to locate the '=' button. Heh. It makes me smile just thinking about it!

Dover Judge Declares: String Theory Illegal!

Not.

But still, you have to wonder. After all, I am fairly certain Judge Jones would not have been sympathetic to, say, Michael Behe arguing:

"It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn't conform to some criteria for what is or isn't science."

That would have been about as well received as a PZ Myers commencement address at Bob Jones University.

In truth, nobody would dare use that as justification for ID.

It is, however, being used in high energy physics. Prominent scientists are asking the community to accept their String Theory work even though it doesn’t conform to what we have traditionally (and now judicially) defined as the standard for science.

In a January 4, 2006 online article on Nature (subscription required) entiled Our Universe: Outrageous Fortune, correspondent Geoff Brumfiel writes:

For two decades now, theorists in the think-big field of cosmology have been stymied by a mathematical quirk in their equations. If the number [the cosmological constant] controlling the growth of the Universe since the Big Bang is just slightly too high, the Universe expands so rapidly that protons and neutrons never come close enough to bond into atoms. If it is just ever-so-slightly too small, it never expands enough, and everything remains too hot for even a single nucleus to form. Similar problems afflict the observed masses of elementary particles and the strengths of fundamental forces.

In other words, if you believe the equations of the world's leading cosmologists, the probability that the Universe would turn out this way by chance are infinitesimal - one in a very large number. "It's like you're throwing darts, and the bullseye is just one part in 10¹²⁰ of the dart board," says Leonard Susskind, a string theorist based at Stanford University in California. "It's just stupid."

Amazingly a growing number of physicists are abandoning hope of finding an explanation in the form of a falsifiable, predictive (i.e., scientific) theory and are instead accepting the following explanation: dumb luck. Oh, to be sure, it's dumb luck mitigated by gazillions of unseen, unlucky universes behind the curtain (don't peek)—but it’s dumb luck just the same. Brumfiel writes:

But things have changed in the past few years, says astronomer Bernard Carr of Queen Mary, University of London, UK. String theorists and cosmologists are increasingly turning to dumb luck as an explanation. If their ideas stand up, it would mean the constants of nature are meaningless. "In the past, many people were almost violently opposed to that idea because it wasn't seen as proper science," Carr says. "But there's been a change of attitude."

Susskind, according to Brumfiel, tells us that things are not as bad as they sound—as long as you possess faith, or the belief in what is not seen:

More recently, string theorists have calculated that there could be 10⁵⁰⁰ universes, which is more than the number of atoms in our observable Universe^†. Under these circumstances, it becomes more reasonable to assume that several would turn out like ours. It's like getting zillions and zillions of darts to throw at the dart board, Susskind says. "Surely, a large number of them are going to wind up in the target zone." And of course, we exist in our particular Universe because we couldn't exist anywhere else.

Brumfiel reports that Nobel Laureate and director of the prestigious Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at UCSB, David Gross, who is a more traditional scientist—that is one who still believes in what we used to call science, is less than impressed:

It's an intriguing idea with just one problem, says Gross: "It's impossible to disprove." Because our Universe is, almost by definition, everything we can observe, there are no apparent measurements that would confirm whether we exist within a cosmic landscape of multiple universes, or if ours is the only one. And because we can't falsify the idea, Gross says, it isn't science. Or at least, it isn't science in any conventional sense of the word. "I think Gross sees this as science taking on some of the traits of religion," says [Bernard] Carr. "In a sense he's correct, because things like faith and beauty are becoming a component of the discussion."

A criticism that the theory is impossible to disprove—does that sound familiar?

According to Benard Carr, then, Gross sees the megaverse of the String Theory landscape, which is gaining wider and wider acceptance in that juicy intersection of cosmology and high energy physics, as religion.

A criticism that the theory amounts to religion—does that sound familiar?

Interestingly enough, a way, we are told, to look for evidence supporting design the landscape megaverse is to search for even more fine-tuning beyond the well-known cosmological constant miracle. The reasoning is straightforward:

1. Our universe is fine-tuned.
   
   
2. The only “scientific” (pay no attention to Professor Gross gnashing his teeth) explanation is a String Theory landscape megaverse.
   
   
3. Therefore, discovering even more fine-tuning provides (indirect) support for the megaverse!

If you think I’m kidding, read more from Brumfiel's Nature article, especially the last paragraph quoted below:

In 2007, researchers at Europe's CERN particle physics centre in Geneva, Switzerland, will turn on the Large Hadron Collider, a massive accelerator that will probe particle energies never before seen by researchers. The accelerator might detect so-called supersymmetric particles, predicted by some as a way of unifying the strong and weak nuclear forces with the electromagnetic force, an important step in uniting all the forces of physics within a single theory.

These particles could also hint at whether we live in one of many universes, says Nima Arkani-Hamed, a string theorist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. If the collider detects certain types of super-symmetric particles, he says, it will indicate another fine-tuning in the cosmos — the ratio of the weak nuclear force to the strength of gravity. The anthropic argument is the same: if the number was off by as little as one part in 10³⁰, then we would not be here to discuss it.

It might seem that the detection of a second, perfectly tuned number would only exacerbate the debate, but Arkani-Hamed argues that it will have the opposite effect. Unlike the cosmological constant, which has had a controversial history even in cosmology, this fine-tuning would appear in the standard model, which most physicists consider to be the most complete physical theory ever developed and tested. It would strengthen the case for the arbitrary nature of certain fundamental constants, Arkani-Hamed contends: "These measurements wouldn't directly prove or disprove the landscape, but they would be a very big push in that direction."

The last sentence is quite amazing. Detection of a new, thirtieth decimal fine-tuning won’t directly prove the landscape, but it would be a big push in that direction! Why? Because there is no other explanation of course, other than, well—design, and that’s not science!

We live in a crazy world. Oh, for the good old days when a new example of fine-tuning was considered a definite win for the ID camp. Now everybody wants the universe to be fine-tuned! This is a sort of unforeseen grand unification. We’ll all share something meaningful: the more fine-tuning we uncover, the more we all will have faith in whatever undetectable force we believe is behind it all. It’s a little disturbing. Maybe more than a little.

Susskind, when not writing popularized books on the subject, is apparently concerned. Brumfiel tells us:

Susskind, too, finds it "deeply, deeply troubling" that there's no way to test the principle. But he is not yet ready to rule it out completely. "It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn't conform to some criteria for what is or isn't science," he says.

If I substituted “Behe” for Susskind” in the quote above, you’d probably think he was talking about irreducible complexity. And if Behe actually made such a statement, he’d be lampooned in all the usual places. The community is somewhat kinder to Dr. Susskind.

I have always said ID is not science. I think it is now defensible to say it differently: ID is as much science as String Theory is.

---

† Stating that 10⁵⁰⁰ is bigger than the number of atoms in the observable universe is even more drastic than the Innumeracy example of saying "McDonalds has sold more than one hamburger." The actual number of atoms in the observable universe is ~10^82.

Bats are Birds?

Whenever you make the claim that the Bible and science are compatible, naysayers will bring-up a series of claims which purport to prove otherwise. These are often presented in a show-stopper manner, as if they have uncovered problematic scripture that no biblical scholar knew existed. So confident are they that any reasonable person would immediately concede the correctness of their view, they don’t actually make an argument—they simply quote a passage, cross their arms and sneer. (Okay, over the internet it only smells like they are crossing their arms and sneering.)

This is the first of a series of posts that I want to use to rebut the oh-so-common points that they reinvent every time this topic arises.

As an introduction, I want to say that it would be a total and utter disaster if the Bible said anything that was inconsistent with (true) science. By “true” science I mean science that has been confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. For example, if the bible taught that the earth was at the center of the cosmos—that would be a disaster. For if the Bible is in error in any statement, it might be in error in its gospel message—and that would make us the most miserable of creatures.

When reconciling these alleged scientific errors—we need to do a credible job. However, we do not have to play by the ground rules of our critics. Their ground rules are this: you must take the passage hyper-literally; purely at face value. You are not allowed to use arguments like “figure of speech” or “hyperbole” or “translation error” or “let’s place it in context.”

On the other hand, we must be honest. If we are to argue that a passage should not be taken hyper-literally, we need to have justification for reading it in the manner that resolves the supposed problem. If the explanation is a translation error, we need to provide evidence.

Oh, by the way, miracles don’t count. They, by definition, are inconsistent with science—otherwise they would be called parlor tricks. We do not have to explain how Moses parted the Red Sea or how Jesus walked on water to reconcile the Bible with science. The fact that science cannot explain miracles is a feature, not a bug.

So let’s, one by one, look at those passages that “prove” the Bible is not consistent with science.

Bats are Birds

The first one we will examine comes from the book of Deuteronomy (A similar passage is in Leviticus):

¹¹ “You may eat all clean birds. ¹² But these are the ones that you shall not eat: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, ¹³ the kite, the falcon of any kind; ¹⁴ every raven of any kind; ¹⁵ the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind; ¹⁶ the little owl and the short-eared owl, the barn owl ¹⁷ and the tawny owl, the carrion vulture and the cormorant, ¹⁸ the stork, the heron of any kind; the hoopoe and the bat. (Deuteronomy 14:11-18)

The problem is clear enough. The Bible states bats are birds, when every grade-schooler knows that bats are mammals.

There are a number of ways to address this claim.

The ancients were not stupid

This is not so much an argument against the details of the claim, but a comment regarding the foolishness of making it in the first place. In fact, this point can be made regarding most if not all of the assertions of biblical scientific error: There is an assumption behind these claims that the ancients were idiots—and their ignorance was written into the Bible, belying both the inspiration and inerrancy (and hence the authority) of scripture.

If one were to make a more logical assumption, namely that the ancients were not morons, then one would be inclined, before declaring victory, to ask whether or not the offending statements could in some manner be correct. This could be done without acknowledging that the Bible is truth rather than fiction. It’s a simple matter of prudent caution; the realization that maybe they did know what they are talking about.

Taxonomy is not Fundamental Science

Classification schema are not written into the fabric of the universe. In fact, taxonomy debates are fairly common. Taxonomy is something we overlay on the diversity of life. It is done sensibly, but there is not an ultimate taxonomy that we have either discovered or awaits discovery. There is only the question of what is useful, self-consistent, and comprehensive enough for present scientific needs.

One rebuttal of the argument that the Bible errs is stating that bats are birds is that, in the simpler taxonomy of the ancients, bats were simply classified as birds. They were under no obligation to adhere to twenty-first century taxonomy—a taxonomy that itself may someday be completely revamped. (And if that happens, it would not relegate the current scheme into the dustbin of scientific error.)

A taxonomy, for example, that has four broad categories: sea life, amphibians, land animals, and flying-things (lets call them birds) is not incorrect and is not scientific error. It’s just not the scheme we use today.

Translation Weakness

A additional but not unrelated explanation is not so much translation error but translation weakness. The Hebrew word ôwph, translated as “birds” or “fowl” means winged. Thus a better translation might be: “You may eat all clean winged animals...” or “You may eat all clean flying things...” It was not grossly wrong, however, to choose “birds.”

Furthermore, even the word atallêph, translated as “bat” is done so with less than absolute certainty—it may mean “an animal flying in the dark.” Footnotes in many bibles attest to the uncertainty of translating atallêph as “bat.” So it is possible, though not critical for this argument, that “bats” is a mistranslation.

Summary

The bottom line remains that, independent of the fairly strong case for translational looseness, we have the argument that the ancients were entitled to their own classification scheme, one that met their needs, and without question a scheme that groups bats and birds together is entirely sensible. To reiterate: our modern classification scheme is not fundamental science. It is not like “general relativity.” A disagreement with our scheme in no way constitutes a scientific error.

Lesson 3: Deity of Christ (Part 2)

(This is based on John Gerstner’s Primer on the Deity of Christ from a compilation of his primers in the book Primitive Theology. I am using Primitive Theology for my Sunday School class. There is a growing list of links on the left for the posts for this class.

Proof of Jesus’ Deity from the Sermon on the Mount

Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, as found in Matthew 5-7, is not usually offered up as proof of His divinity. But upon closer inspection, it is. Consider the Beatitudes. Here Jesus utters some of His most well known statements, such as “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.” “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.” And so on.

These statements are often used as further evidence for Jesus’ love, His kindness, and His moral teaching. But do they not say more if we think about how they are stated? They are stated with absolute and final authority. Jesus is not citing any other authority upon whom one can trust his teaching on whom will inherit the kingdom of God—he invokes only his own.

Looked at it differently, Jesus could be just a good teacher. Or He could be a prophet. Or He could be God.

If Jesus recognized himself as merely a good teacher, he would have stated something like: “My beloved, I believe that the poor in spirit are blessed and I believe that theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.”

If Jesus were a prophet, he would have stated something like: “Thus saith the Lord: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.”

A mere teacher would qualify his teachings, as self-evident as they may be, as his own beliefs—and would offer scriptural support. A prophet would acknowledge that the source of the teachings is something beyond himself, namely God. Only God would rationally make these pronouncements as absolute fact on basis of the authority of the speaker. When, as Christians, we read the beatitudes we instinctively understand that God is speaking. But we rarely flesh that out to its logical conclusion: Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount testifies to His divinity.

This is most evident in the last beatitude. Here Jesus states: “Blessed are you when men shall revile you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you.”

Here we have a clear claim of divinity, should we care to look for it. For this says more than you will be persecuted, and the prophets were persecuted too. It attests that the prophets and the disciples were/will be persecuted for the same reason: for the sake of Jesus. No human being could claim that the prophets of hundreds of years earlier had been persecuted for his sake. Only a pre-existing entity could make such a claim—only God could make the claim.

Jesus’ Comments on the Bible Attest to His Divinity

Recall when Jesus teaches us how hard it is to be a Christian. He does this when pointing out misconceptions about Old Testament scripture. He says: “It is said by them of old time, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ but I say unto you…” or “It is said by them of old time, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery,’ but I say unto you…”

We need to consider the magnitude of these statements. Jesus is speaking to an audience that (rightly) considered the Old Testament as the inspired word of God. Jesus calmly recites the Old Testament passages, and then proceeds to make statements that supersede them. He matter-of-factly and clearly places his pronouncements on the same level as Holy Scripture. Only God can do this. Once again, imagine the absurdity of even the apostle Paul stating “scripture says this, but what I say is…”

Notice that the way Jesus makes these claims cannot rest on his sinlessness alone. If Jesus were sinless but not God (if such a thing were possible)—that is if he were merely a man who had reached the theoretical limit of human perfection—the statements of his which we have been discussing would still be blasphemous. And by making such statements, he would no longer be sinless!

The Most Definitive Statement of Jesus’ Divinity from the Sermon on the Mount

At the end of His sermon, Jesus describes a frightening scene of judgment, when Jesus tells us: “In that day men shall come before Me and say, ‘Lord, Lord. Have we not prophesized in thy name? Have we not cast out demons in thy name? Have we not done mighty works in thy name?’ And I shall say unto them, ‘Depart from me ye workers of iniquity, I never knew you.’ ”

Jesus’ teaching of His own divinity could hardly be clearer. He describes being called Lord, and He takes no steps to correct it as an error, so we assume he accepts the honorific. But more importantly, He places himself as ruler over the final judgment of man—a role that belongs only to God.

Why does Jesus never say “I am God?” Perhaps it is because He says it so clearly and in ways that provide more details. The statement we have just discussed is just as clear in its claim of deity, yet it teaches us much more than a simple declarative statement.

To be continued...

New book—should I or shouldn’t I?

I am thinking about writing another book—this time non-fiction. In fact, I have already written a couple chapters.

I want to write on the science-faith interface, but I don’t want to jump into what is already a crowded field. The world does not need another book on fine-tuning. There are at least twenty of them out there.

It seems to me that what may generate interest and provide some value is a book that is a bit heavier on the theology than most of the fine-tuning works, but yet written by someone who knows science. This would necessarily limit the audience to believers—and that, I think, is exactly what I want.

I want to argue my case to believers who are antagonistic toward science—or who believe that the Ken Ham/Russell Humphreys young-earth view is the only way to reconcile science with the Bible.

I want to argue my case to believers who think that there is a scientific conspiracy to undermine Christianity.

I want to argue that in many cases we have met the enemy, and he is us.

Given that I am by most measures a “conservative” Christian, that is I affirm biblical inerrancy—well I think there would be some value hearing it from me rather than from a scientist who may be a liberal Christian.

A scientist who is a liberal Christian would have the perspective that the Bible is not authoritative or even reliable when it does (in rare cases) speak to science. They would reconcile the Bible and science by emphasizing their orthogonality.

I would take a completely different approach—superficially similar to that of the folks at Answers In Genesis (AiG), that the Bible is authoritative and reliable even when (in rare cases) it speaks of science. The difference would be that I think mainstream physics (old earth) is perfectly harmonious with scripture—while the AiG crowd does not.

There are other themes I can imagine including, many of which I blogged about. Perhaps most importantly is the disturbing elevation of blind faith to a pious virtue—in spite the absence of any scriptural support—and the consequential holier-than-thou mistrust of those who look for God not just in His word, but also in His creation.

Anyway, just thinking out loud.

Ouch, that really hurts

On Wednesday I was skiing on Cannon Mountain in New Hampshire.

I didn’t make it through my second run.

It was my first time skiing Cannon, so obviously I was on an unfamiliar trail. I was already going fast when the trail suddenly turned steeper. I picked up speed, hit a bump, lost control, and fell.

At that point I was sliding on my back, backwards, at a fairly good clip. I was sliding down and across the trail, and soon came to the edge. Instead of being stopped by the netting that marks the border between the trail and the woods, I went under it, on my back, headfirst.

I came to a sudden stop when I hit a tree with my head. A literal head-on collision.

I was wearing a helmet, or I’d be dead.

I almost blacked out.

An off duty ski patroller stopped and pulled me out. (Off the trail, the snow was about three feet deep.) He asked me if I could ski the rest of the way. I said I thought I could, but then, when I stood up, I felt dizzy. After that, and especially after I told him (a) I hit a tree at high speed with my head and (b) two years ago I suffered an as-yet not completely healed herniated disc (C6) from another skiing accident (I collided with a demon snowboarder) he was not going to let me ski.

So I ended up on a backboard, strapped in, head, arms and legs immobilized. Fairly humiliating. They loaded me on a sled and skied me off the mountain, right to a waiting ambulance, and off to a hospital.

The worse part was in the ER. I was still strapped to the backboard, now placed on a gurney. The strap around my jaw was incredibly tight. It was hot, and I still had my ski jacket and, even worse, my ski boots. The nurses would not loosen the straps until a doctor checked me out, which took some time.

An angel of mercy took off my boots. And finally I got unstrapped. Off to radiology for X-rays, and everything looked OK. (The radiologist could detect my earlier injury—pretty impressive on an X-ray as opposed to an MRI.) While I was waiting, three or four other people were brought into the ER in the same state: immobilized on a backboard. Under one doctor’s lab coat, I could see a t-shirt that read: I survived ski-week in the ER.

The next day I felt as if I had been in a car wreck. My neck was very stiff, and my chest ached.

By Friday I was exercising again. Everything seems to be healing nicely. On Saturday night, New Year’s Eve, our church held its annual Hogmanay Ceilidh (Scottish folk dance.) The Master of Ceremonies, one Stuart of the Campbell clan, told of my incident to all those present for the festivities, and insisted that I wear a hard-hat during the dancing.

So much fun and excitement packed into one short week.