Sunday, December 21, 2014

My Top 4 Favorite Christmas Songs

Last Christmas season, I spent many Facebook statuses trashing bad Christmas carols. Needless to say, it didn't go over too well. I got many negative comments. This Christmas season, I decided to be more positive. Every Advent Sunday, I posted a good Christmas song that really captures the true meaning of Christmas. After the 4 Advent Sundays, I posted my top 4 favorite Christmas songs. So I thought on this last Advent Sunday, I would post all 4 favorite Christmas songs in one blog. So, without further ado, my top 4 favorite Christmas songs.

4. "Lived the Day You Died"

This song comes from that Christian parody band, the ApologetiX.   This song is a parody of "Love the Way You Lie" by Eminem feat. Rihanna. ApologetiX has really redeemed this song about an abusive relationship. J. Jackson takes the little detail of the Christmas story of the wise men bringing baby Jesus myrrh, and he expounds on it, on how it plays in Christ's redemptive plan. It reminds the listener that the Christmas story is not segregated from the Easter story, but has an important role contributing to it.

(I put the master recording first because it's easier to hear and understand, but the live version has better female vocals, no offense to Jana Jackson, so I put that second)




3. "Boy Like Me"

"Boy Like Me" comes from the Singing Christmas Tree album from VeggieTales. I came across this album when Amazon had it as a free download a few years ago. I have never heard the doctrine of the humanity of Jesus sung in a song that well written in both terms of music and lyrics. And from children's Christmas music nonetheless!



2. "Mary Did You Know?"

This song just ask the questions that everyone wonders. How much did Mary understand about the boy she was giving birth to? This song also does a good job of combining the deity and humanity of Jesus.



1. "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing"

 No, it's not my favorite because it's at the end of the Charlie Brown Christmas special. Charles Wesley, composer of both music and lyrics, made sure all the music he wrote was theologically sound (pun somewhat intended). This song is full of theology. It reminds the Christian that the birth is to get the Christian in focus on God's redemptive plan through ...Christ's ministry. Jesus was born so that "God and sinners reconciled." Jesus was "Born to raise the sons of earth, born to give second birth." It also teaches Christians that Jesus is both God and man. "Veiled in flesh, the Godhead see..." Like I said, so much theology in such a short song. This song, equips, edifies, encourages, teaches and worships. It does so much.

Oh, what the heck, let's play the Charlie Brown Christmas version for good measure.


Merry Christmas everyone! :)

Thursday, December 18, 2014

The Really Real Jesus

Introduction

A few years ago, I came across a discussion between teens and college-aged young adults, doubting if the Pilgrims arrived in Plymouth, Massachusetts on the Mayflower in 1620. At first thought, this conversation might provoke someone to shake his or her head, thinking how stupid this generation is for not believing a historical event important to the American nation. After further thought, however, no one can really blame this generation for questioning history. College students today, when they went through elementary school, heard a story of George Washington cutting down a cherry tree and then reporting to his father, “I cannot tell a lie. I cut down the cherry tree. In reality, this story never happened. This story circulated when George Washington sat in as President of the United States, in order to teach early Americans that George Washington always spoke the truth in honesty. In elementary school, students learn that Cristopher Columbus discovered America in 1492. Then, in high school, the same students learn the Leif Ericson discovered American about 500 years earlier, and more closely to what we know as [the United States of] America (Leif Ericson landed in present-day Newfoundland; Cristopher Columbus landed in the present-day Caribbean island of Hispanola). No wonder this generation doubts history so much! And that’s history that only happened a few centuries ago. How much more ancient history, where the ancient historians rarely differed between their history and religious myths. For example, the Trojan War really happened between the Spartans and Trojans, but the Iliad records the Trojan War had Greek gods and goddesses appearing to heroes on both sides. A teen or young adult reading the Iliad could doubt the Trojan War happened because Homer mentions Greek gods and goddesses involved in the war.

For if anyone wants to disprove the ancient Greek polytheism, all a person would have to do is take a hike up to Mount Olympus. When that person reaches the summit of Mount Olympus and observes no gods or goddesses there, he or she can easily conclude the Greek gods and goddesses do not exist. If the Greek gods and goddesses do not exist, then anyone can easily conclude that all the Greek myths, like the Iliad (even Greek history, like the Trojan War!), that have the Greek gods and goddesses in them cannot be trusted as historically accurate. Ancient religions, like the ancient Greek polytheism, has turned many people into atheists. Their atheism, which makes people believe God does not exist, makes people believe that any ancient writing mentioning a God must not be historically credible. Going further, if any of those ancient writings calls a person a God, both the writing and the person cannot be considered historically credible. In terms of Christianity, some atheists concludes that since God does not exist, Jesus does not exist, and if the Bible mentions Jesus existed as both God and man, they don’t take the Bible seriously as history. The atheist’s prejudices and presuppositions has led him or her astray. Jesus did exist outside the Bible, for many first century people, including hostile opponents, referenced Jesus. Even if the atheist admits Jesus existed, as some do, they state the Bible does not accurately record who Jesus is or what Jesus did. Therefore, the Christian cannot quit at proving Jesus existed in history. The Christian must insist that Jesus lived just as the Gospels record. This paper will not only prove Jesus existed, as the historical records demonstrate, but also that the Gospels accurately recorded the historical Jesus, using archaeology and the testimony of the early church fathers.

Background of the Need

Throughout history, especially recent history, everyone from atheists to so-called “intellectuals” have doubted if Jesus existed. If they do say Jesus existed, either willingly or reluctantly, they question if the Gospels historically record Jesus as he lived in the first century. The most recent and most famous is the Jesus Seminar. Consisting of Robert Funk and thirty of his friends, the Jesus Seminary sought to sort out the non-fiction Jesus and the fiction Jesus from the four canonical Gospels and the pseudapigraphal Gospel of Thomas. The members of the Jesus Seminar voted on the sayings of Jesus using four colored beads. Red meant Jesus definitely said it or something close to it. Pink represented Jesus probably said it, or said a somewhat similar idea, but multiple transmissions have left a little room for questioning it. Gray denoted that Jesus probably didn’t say it, but maybe it roughly represents an idea Jesus had. Black signified that Jesus never said, but rather the church sometime in history inserted that interpretation about Jesus. When all voting finished, only sixteen percent of events, seventeen percent of parables, and eighteen percent of the sayings of Jesus got the red bead vote to acknowledge them as historically accurate. The Jesus Seminar denied all of Gospels’ miracles, from the virgin birth to the resurrection. When the Jesus Seminary completed, they turned Jesus into a smart teacher and a social revolutionists, and nothing more. Therefore, Christians need apologetics that defend both Jesus as a real person in history and the Gospels as real historical accounts of the real Jesus.

Historical Records

Atheism denies the existence of God, but some atheists go even further and boldly proclaim that Jesus never existed either. Those atheists claim that only the New Testament mentions Jesus, and therefore they quickly conclude that Jesus never existed outside the imagination of the apostles. Such atheists, however, have concluded too quickly, and thus have concluded falsely, for historical records outside the Bible speak of Jesus.

Suetonius

Roman historians wrote about Jesus. Suetonius Tranquillus, an upper class lawyer, wrote a history of twelve Roman emperors after viewing the Roman archives of the emperors. Upon writing about Emperor Claudius, Suetonius records that Claudius removed the Jews from Rome. Suetonius says that Claudius removed the Jews because of their riots due to “the instigation of Chestus.” Christian scholars have good reason to believe that Chestus is a scribal error for Christ. Despite several records carefully recording the name of every Jew in Rome, not a single record writes down a Chestus in Rome. If Chestus did exist as a slave, as some skeptics have suggested, a good Roman historian, like Suetonius, would have provided some kind of biographical sketch explaining the minor character’s importance. No such biographical sketch exists, suggesting every commoner knew about the character. The error probably comes from the term Chrestiani, a profane name Romans gave Christians, including Suetonius. In fact, when Suetonius uses profanity in regards to Christians in an official historical recording, Suetonius displays his disdain towards Christians. Suetonius further demonstrates his hatred towards Christians when he later records that Christians follow an imaginary myth that causes misbehavior. Therefore, the Christian can conclude that Suetonius believed Jesus existed, for Suetonius blames the work of Jesus for upheaval between Jews and Christians in Rome.

Tacticus

In his final work, Roman senator and historian Cornelius Tacticus records Roman history from the fourteenth century A.D. to the sixty-eighth. Tacticus highlights the burning of Rome as an important event in Roman history. Tacticus records Nero started the fire, but blamed Christians as the cause. Tacticus then briefly describes Christians. He explains that Christians followed a Jesus of Nazareth, whom they called the Christ, who got executed by Pontius Pilate. Tacticus also looks down on Christians, for he calls them a people “hated for their abominable crimes” and later calls them “hateful of humanity.” Yet Tacticus too acknowledges Jesus. He calls Jesus a Christ, fully knowing the implications of the title. He recognizes Jesus as the founder of the movement the apostles expounded, commonly known as Christianity. He verifies for the Christian that Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified. Furthermore, by mentioning Pontius Pilate, who many Roman historians mention, Tacticus puts Jesus in real history. Therefore, the Christian can conclude Tacticus knew Jesus existed, too.

Pliny the Younger

As a Roman senator and governor, Pliny the Younger took the time to investigate Christians in order to know how to deal with them. Pliny even went as far as sending out spies to spy on Christians to learn more about them. In a letter to Trajan, Pliny reports that the Christians recite a creed stating Jesus as Christ and God. Once again, Pliny recognizes the start of the Christian movement that had reached Rome. The movement started with Jesus. Pliny records a style of worship similar to that in Acts. Pliny even goes further and mentions that Christian worship included reciting a creed, declaring Jesus as God. He goes on to say their reverence for Christ as God does not allow them to worship another as God. In conclusion, Pliny not only recognized Jesus as real, but also recognized that some saw Jesus as God. Like Suetonius and Tacticus, Pliny stands as an enemy of Christianity, for he too declares the religion nothing more than a crazy superstition. Not even Pliny’s hostility towards Christianity could prevent him from denying the existence of Jesus.

Josephus

Not only did Roman historians record Jesus in history, but a Jewish historian did as well. Jewish historian Josephus speaks about Jesus in many of his works. Of all the works of Josephus, Testamonium Flavium and Antiquities talks the most about Jesus. The most famous passage comes from Testamonium Flavium. Even subtracting the material that has come into question, Joseph makes bold statements for a Jewish devotee. First, Josephus calls Jesus wise, and he also notes that other people knew Jesus as a wise man. Second, Josephus says Jesus does “surprising works,” possibly nodding at the miracles as supernatural acts. Third, Josephus states that Jesus faced opposition from Jewish leadership and Pontius. Fourth, Josephus confirms Jesus died on the cross at Pilate’s command. Fifth, although Josephus may not have believed it himself, he records the Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead, which led Christians to believe Jesus must be the Messiah. Josephus didn’t just believe Jesus existed, Joseph believed most of the Gospel claims as well.

Josephus mentions Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews, although indirectly. Antiquities of the Jews concludes with the close of Festus’s reign and Annas’s rule in the Sanhedrin. When Festus dies, Annas makes a power grab and starts making executive decisions. In one decision, Annas has James, “the brother of Jesus called Christ,” arrested, along with “certain others.” The certain others probably refers to Christians. To specify a common name such as James, Josephus identifies him as the brother of the Jesus. To specify a common name such as Jesus, Josephus identifies him as Jesus known as Christ. This name and title makes it clear that the original reader could have known about Jesus.

Rabbis

Not only did Jewish historians record Jesus in history, but Jewish rabbis did as well. Two of the most explicit mentions come from the transcripts of the Sanhedrin. These transcripts do more than just acknowledge Jesus existed. They acknowledge Jesus received the death penalty, and the time table matches the one found in the Gospels. Later on in the text, a rabbi declares Jesus practiced magic. This rabbi asserts he saw something supernatural happen, even if he does not call it a divine miracle. Although all the writings criticize and condemn Jesus, they prove Jesus existed nonetheless.

Archaeological Records

Previously, we have explored records and other writings in history that mention a Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians believed to be the Messiah. Next, this paper will look at the Gospels as historically accurate. Before this paper can look at the Gospels, however, this paper needs to look at the archaeological record. The archaeological will not have any explicit mentions of Jesus by name. Rather, the archaeology will display the history, culture and geography of the first century Israel. In turn, when the Gospels display the same history, culture and geography, the reader can rest assured that the Gospel authors recorded the Gospels as accurate to history.

Coins

In Mark 12:13-17, the Pharisees and Herodians try to trap Jesus with a question about taxes. In this story, Jesus asks for a coin, and then he asks whose inscription is on the coin. They reply Caesar’s. Indeed, archaeology has revealed coins had Caesar’s name stamped on them. In fact, Caesars would use the coins to spread propaganda about themselves. Coin inscriptions would not only have the Caesar’s name, but also a title such as “Son of God” or “Son of a Divine one.” Such titles would remind the citizens that the previous Caesar, the current Caesar’s father, had reached a place among the gods, which verifies the current Caesar as the legitimate Caesar of Rome. Sometimes, if a Caesar pushed to make himself deity before death, he would change the coin inscription to something like “the holy one” or “the revered one.” Caesar Augustus, the emperor during the time of Jesus, had made this change by the time Jesus entered the ministry. Not only does Jesus reference this change in the Gospel of Mark, he might use it to make the Herodians, a political party supporting the Romans, to decide who is God: Jesus or Caesar.

Calendar

Another key inscription comes from a calendar found in Priene, a city located in western Asia Minor. The calendar made the birthday Caesar Augustus the new beginning to the year. The calendar writes that the Caesar’s birth is good news and that people should celebrate with good tidings toward each other. Both terms “good news” and “good tidings” comes the Greek word euanggelia, or gospel. What makes the Caesar’s birthday gospel, or good news, is that a god comes down to earth in human form. The inscription of the word gospel on the Roman calendar helps the Christian understand the use and importance of the word gospel in the four Gospels. Mark roughly borrows this Priene calendar inscription for the start of his Gospel. In Mark 1:1, Mark boldly proclaims that Caesar’s birth does not begin the good news, but rather the ministry of Jesus begins the good news. Altogether, the Romans used the idea of gospel just as much as the Christians living in the Roman Empire.

Urbanization of Galilee

Archaeology reveals that, during the ministry of Jesus, Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, began building more in Galilee to make rural Galilee more urban. Antipas started by building two cities. One he named Sepphoris, and the other he named Tiberias. These two cities attracted many rural Galileans into city life, as well attracting many other people from faraway lands. With more people in the land, the demand for food and housing went up. In order to pay for food and housing, people would go into debt and have to work off their debt as tenants working in a farmer’s field. Jesus knew his currents events. Therefore, he taught lessons in Galilee that many Galileans could relate to. Such teachings consist of the parable of the wicked servant, the parable of the workers in the vineyard and the parable of the tenants. All these parables accurately describe life as a tenant farmer in first century Galilee.

Gospel Record

So far, we have explored records and other writings in history that mention a Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians believed to be the Messiah. Most of these writings come from opponents of Jesus and opponents of Christianity. If Jesus didn’t exist, those opponents would have called the Christians out for believing in an imaginary person. Since these opponents take the time to refute Jesus, he must exist. Christians can use these writings to prove that Jesus existed to atheists. These accounts, however, can only get the Christian to prove Jesus existed. This leaves people to make any claim about Jesus they please. The Christian should not stop at proving the existence of Jesus. If the Christian believes the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then Jesus needs to be real like the Bible says. The Gospels writers took the time to record the words and actions of Jesus just as he lived them. Even as early as the church fathers, they could see the Gospels as historically accurate.

Four Distant Gospel Authors

Due to increased persecution in the 40s A.D., the apostles, including all four Gospel authors, split into four main mission groups to spread the Gospel. Paul and Luke most likely ministered to Greeks in Greece, as all Paul’s epistles hint. John most likely ministered in Asia Minor, as his seven letters in Revelation hints. Peter and Mark probably ministered together to the Romans in Rome. James and Matthew probably ministered to the Jews, wherever they were scattered. Looking at a map, the four Gospel authors wrote their Gospel accounts very far apart from each other, in both distance and time. This means they almost certainly did not collaborate with each other. Still, their stories concur with each other. Therefore, the reader can conclude these stories accurately account what Jesus did on this earth.

Against the Expectations

Some skeptical of the Gospels’ historical accuracy hypothesize the Gospel authors fictionalized Jesus in order to make him the Messiah. If the Gospel writers did fictionalize Jesus to make him the Christ, they did a terrible job. The first century Jews, including the Jewish Gospel writers Matthew, Mark and John, had expectations of the Messiah totally different to the character of Jesus. Still Matthew, Mark and John wrote down that contrary character Jesus displayed instead of writing down their dream Messiah. If the Gospel authors wanted their ideal Messiah, they would showed Jesus as a prophet who agreed with all the respected Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ religious teachings. Instead, they showed Jesus constantly in conflict with the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ legalistic interpretation of the Law. If the Gospel writers wanted their model Christ, Jesus would heavily support a sovereign Israel and would fight Rome like Joshua fighting the Canaanites. Instead, Jesus never causes Rome any problems. In fact, he even helps a Roman centurion. The Gospel authors could have chosen to fictionalize Jesus to prove to Jews Jesus was truly the Messiah. Instead, they chose to accurately record Jesus as he lived in history, even if it meant losing Jewish followers.

Early Church Fathers

The early church fathers quickly accepted the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as historically accurate accounts of the life of Jesus. The early church fathers had these four Gospels circulated throughout the whole Roman Empire. They quoted them freely in their letters. For example, Clement quotes all three synoptic Gospels in a letter to Corinth. Irenaeus writes that Polycarp, a disciple of John, read and quoted the Gospel of John constantly. When the early church fathers came together to write the creeds of the faith, they heavily relied on the four Gospels. When the creeds record that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus, they align the crucifixion with history. Upon observing Christians, Pliny writes that the Christians read and recite the Gospels every Sunday. If the Christians read and recite the Gospels, they had to believe them to be true, including Jesus living. Justin the Martyr also observes Christians coming together to read a creed in his First Apology. Justin even writes down some of this creed. The creed not only records Jesus crucified during the time of Pontius Pilate, but also during Tiberius Caesar. All the early church fathers clearly conclude Jesus did exist as a real man in history, just as the four Gospels accurately record.

The Gnostic Gospels

The Gnostic gospels might sound like an odd choice to defend the historicity of the four true Gospels, but comparing the two, the Gnostic gospels reveal themselves to be fiction and the four true Gospels to be historical. The Gospel of Truth, written by the Gnostic Valentinus, does not record any action of Jesus, so it cannot be taken as historically true. The same goes for the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas does not have any narrative. While The Gospel of Thomas has several sayings that anyone can find in the other four canonical Gospels, it also contains saying heretical compared to the other Gospels. All this evidence adds up to a false Gospel. The Unknown Gospel, written in the second century, while free of heresy, consists of a compilation of verses from the other four canonical Gospels. This so-called gospel is merely a harmony of the true Gospels, furthermore attesting to the four Gospels historical accuracy. Same goes for the Gospel of Peter. The Gospel of Peter’s source comes from the three synoptic Gospels. Again, this attests to how the people of second century already saw the synoptic Gospels as historically accurate. The early church fathers quickly and easily rejected these Gnostic Gospels because they knew they were not historically credible. They knew they needed a historical account of the man Jesus, so that’s why they went with the historical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John over the Gnostic Gospels.

Conclusion
 
Jesus did exist in history. Romans historians such as Suetonius, Tacticus and Pliny the Younger wrote about Jesus. Jewish historian Josephus wrote about Jesus. None of these historians would have sacrificed their credibility as historians for a fictional character, especially a fictional character whom they despised, as well as despising his followers. Jewish rabbis talk about Jesus in the Talmud. If Jesus wouldn’t have existed, they would have wrote down that in order to silence the new Christianity for falsely proclaiming a Messiah. Instead of denying his existence, they denied his words and deeds. Furthermore, Jesus existed in history exactly as the Gospels record it. They early church fathers immediately agreed with the testimony of these books, and they even supplemented it with more history. At the same time, the early church fathers quickly rejected the Gnostic gospels because they knew those books did not agree with Jesus either historically or theologically. All the Gospels match up with the exact same history and culture modern-day archaeology has revealed. The Gospel authors could not have collaborated their Gospels into pieces of fictions. They lived too far apart to collaborate. If they did collaborate, they did a horrible job, for they created a Messiah totally contrasting what the Jews declared the Messiah would be. Therefore, the Gospels must then accurate record the real, historical Jesus. If the atheists still wants to consider themselves intellectual, they must stop denying the existence of Jesus, as stated in the Gospels, for they are not doing themselves any favors.

 

Thursday, December 04, 2014

Being the Attitude of Christ (Matthew 5:3-10)

Introduction

Matthew starts out Christ’s ministry in his gospel with the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount begins with the Beatitudes. Any Jew reading this book would have thought of Moses’s teaching of the Law of God from Mount Sinai. After the Beatitudes, Jesus goes on to say in verse seventeen that he has not come to abolish the Law or the prophets, but he has come to fulfill them. Jesus knew that a Jew shouldn’t just know the Law, but a good, godly Jew should also follow it. If Jesus gives his audience on the Sermon on the Mount a “new law,” then Jesus needs to fulfill that law like he does with the Old Testament Law. Matthew takes the time to show his Jewish readers that Jesus follows the Sermon on the Mount in his Gospel. This paper will look specifically at how Jesus follows the Beatitudes.

The Poor in Spirit

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” –Matthew 5:3

Readers must understand that poor in spirit in no way means a weak faith or an absent faith. Readers must also understand that poor in spirit goes beyond just being physically poor. Indeed, Matthew probably draws the idea “poor in the spirit” from the image of a poor person. From the Old Testament, Jews, like Matthew, made a correlation between obedience and financial blessing. In the Jewish mind, if God granted someone great riches, that person must have done something righteous or holy. On the other hand, if someone had no money, according to Jews, that person must have sinned, and God cursed that person for doing so. Jews would associate the term “poor” with the mental image of a beggar begging. Matthew takes it a step further. By turning “poor” into “poor in spirit,” Matthew paints a picture of a person begging God for everything because they depend on God for everything. They are spiritually bankrupt and thus also spiritually powerless. It means that person cannot please God on his or her own. Someone who is poor in spirit quickly confesses and repents when he or she sins and falls short of the glory of God. The poor in spirit stand unique in the Beatitudes because their blessing happens in the present, whereas the other Beatitudes talk about a future promise. These people already have the mindset of the kingdom of heaven because in the kingdom of heaven, everybody depends on God for everything.

Jesus lived as one who is poor in spirit while on the earth. The readers of Matthew can clearly see Jesus as poor in spirit when reading about the miracles. Instead of using his powers as deity, Jesus models to his disciples how they, as humans, can do miracles. It all comes down to trusting in God and asking for his power.

Those who Mourn

“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” –Matthew 5:4

People mourn over evil that has happened in the world. The evil that happens in the world comes from sin. Evil that causes mourning sometimes derives from the immediate results of personal, individual sins, while at other times the evil derives from social injustice. Their comfort will come when Jesus completely removes sin and sets up the perfect kingdom of heaven. Perhaps Matthew even intended to connect those who mourn to the poor in spirit. A person, when poor in spirit, becomes sorrowful, and thus mourns. Therefore, verses three and four parallel each other, for mourning results from one acknowledging being poor in spirit. Their comfort comes when God provides for them. Mourning might also result when a person sees how much the kingdom of heavens seeks, and how man has not reached it. These people will receive consolation when Jesus establishes the kingdom of God on earth, and everyone can reach its standards.

Matthew shows a sorrowful Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. In Matthew 26:37, Matthew explicitly states Jesus as “sorrowful and troubled.” Then, in Matthew 26:38, Matthew records Jesus telling Peter, James and John, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.” With this repetition, Matthew reiterates the importance of Christ’s emotional state. Although necessary for God’s plan of man’s salvation, the agony of facing the most painful death in the world brought Jesus to sorrow. Because of Christ’s sorrow, man can seek comfort in knowing he can receive salvation.

The Meek

“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” –Matthew 5:5

The Greek word translated “meek” in Matthew 5:5, praeis, exists only three other times in the New Testament, two of them in Matthew. In the other instances, praeis gets translated “gentle” or “humble.” The English term “meek” further adds the idea of a person who is non-aggressive. Meek does not mean weak, but instead, it means practicing self-control over the strength that a person has. If someone humbles himself or herself to be gentle, that person might fear he or she allows others to use or abuse them. Not true, Jesus says. Jesus promises them the earth. The Jews of the first century might have thought they had to take Israel back from the Romans by force. Jesus turns the kingdom upside down on this Jewish thinking. One day, Jesus will take all the land for himself, and he will give it to those who gently humbled themselves.

As stated earlier, praeis only appears three more times in the New Testament; two of them appear in Matthew, besides the Sermon on the Mount appearance. Both uses in Matthew describe Jesus. In Matthew 11:29, Jesus invites the weary and heavy burdened to find rest in him, for Jesus is “gentle [praeis] and lowly in heart.” In Matthew 21:5, when Jesus triumphantly enters Jerusalem, Matthew quotes Zechariah 9:9, which says, “Behold, your king is coming to you, humble [praeis], and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.” Although Matthew quotes the Septuagint, Matthew sees a meek Christ, and so he quotes Zechariah to show his Jewish audience that a meek Jesus fulfills the prophecy of a meek Christ.

Those who Hunger and Thirst for Righteousness

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” –Matthew 5:6
 
Just like with the poor in spirit, Jesus takes a physical quality, hunger and thirst, and spiritualizes it to give a deeper meaning. It does include a basic need for food, but it then goes deeper than that. Just as hungry person seeks food and a thirsty person seeks drink, so someone who hunger and thirsts for righteousness seeks righteousness and justice. They aim to live in a community that resembles Eden before the Fall, just as God created humans to live in. Jesus promises those who hunger and thirst that they will be satisfied. When Jesus establishes the kingdom of heaven, they will have their fill in righteousness and justice, for the kingdom of heaven has nothing but righteousness and justice.

Jesus knew his spiritual hunger needed to be greater than his physical hunger. When Satan tempted Jesus to turn stones into bread, Jesus did not. Instead of sinning in order to fill his stomach, Jesus pursued righteousness and did not sin, even it meant not filling his stomach.

The Merciful

“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.” –Matthew 5:7

Being merciful can mean not dealing bitterly with someone or not disciplining someone who deserves it, but being merciful also extends to randomly acting kindly to someone for no just reason. Yet the random acts of kindness cannot be occasional, for a merciful person makes giving mercy a lifestyle choice. Being merciful includes compassion, forgiveness and generosity. In return, God returns the mercy to them throughout their lives, all the way up to the Judgment Day. Perhaps people become merciful because they recognize they need God to have mercy on themselves for sinning.

The Greek word translated here as merciful, eleemones, only appears in Matthew 5:7 and Hebrews 2:17, a verse which describes Jesus. Therefore, Jesus needs to become the Christian’s role model for being merciful. Once again, Matthew shows a merciful Jesus. In Matthew 9:27-31, Jesus has mercy when he stops in route to his next destination in order to help blind men in the road see. In Matthew 15:21-28, Jesus extends mercy to a Gentile woman when he healed the woman’s daughter, although his ministry focused on the Jews. In Matthew 17:14-21, Jesus exorcises a demon out of a man’s son when the disciples could not do it. If the reader does not believe these miracles as acts of mercy, the reader should re-read the stories, for each story has the main character cry out to Jesus for mercy. Jesus hears their pleas for mercy, and he replies in mercy.

The Pure in Heart
 
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” –Matthew 5:8

Pure refers to cleanliness, and heart refers to the non-material part of the person. Put together, Jesus blesses one who cleanses on the inside like Jews ritually clean the outside. It rejects sin, impurity and filth. In its place goes righteousness and holiness. This purification can only come from depending on God for everything and following Jesus. Those who can obtain this purity shall see God. Perhaps when Jesus mentioned seeing God, the Jewish audience thought about holy men in the Old Testament, who got to see a little of God and became fully illuminated. The pure in heart in the New Testament will get the see God better and more fully, for when they see God, they will see him in his presence. This accounts for the pure in heart’s holiness, for only holy people can stand in the presence of a holy God.

Jesus did not have to purify himself of sin, for Jesus had no sin in him. Jesus came close to sin when he faced temptation in Matthew 4. When facing temptations by Satan, Jesus demonstrated purity in heart. He rejected Satan’s temptations that would make him impure and unclean. Instead, he chose righteousness and holiness, quoting Scriptures that move him closer to righteousness and holiness and away from sin. All those Scriptures reminded Jesus, Satan, and the readers to seek God only, follow God only and worship God only.

The Peacemakers

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” –Matthew 5:9

Notice Jesus says “the peacemakers” and not something else, like “the peaceful” or “those at peace.” Peacemakers emphasize making peace, not just thinking about it or talking about it. Peacemaking does, however, start internally. Once peace lays a foundation in the heart of a person, it will flow out in his or her physical actions. The peacemakers are the only Beatitude that Jesus give a title, the title being the sons of God. A person called the son of God becomes a son a God. He or she gets adopted into God’s family. God treats that person as if the person is family. God promises all in his family an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven is a peaceable kingdom. Naturally, it would only make sense for a peacemaker to inherit a peaceable kingdom.

Matthew 21:1-17 displays Jesus as a peacemaker. In Matthew 21:1-11, Jesus enters Jerusalem, riding on a donkey. When a king entered a city riding on a donkey, it meant he came in peace. From his entrance into Jerusalem, Jesus made it clear he came in peace. Despite the crowds that rally to welcome Jesus, no riots or insurrections occur. In Matthew 21:12-13, Jesus sees the merchants and money changers, and he becomes angry with a righteous anger. He expels the merchants and overturns the money changing tables. Peacemaking involves social justice. Jesus saw a social injustice happening with the merchants and moneychangers. Neither one of them would allow the poor to worship God properly. Jesus knew that wasn’t right, so he removed it all from his Father’s temple. Then, in Matthew 21:14, Jesus goes back to performing miracles. By performing miracles, he continued to return the shalom, the peace that originates back in the perfect Garden of Eden, where everything was as it should be. Peacemakers seek to return life on earth back to life in the Garden.

Those who are Persecuted for Righteousness’s Sake

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” –Matthew 5:10

Jesus rightfully saves the blessing for the persecuted last, for the persecution might come as a result of following all the other beatitudes. The persecution may also come from other forms of righteous living, but the persecution must come as a result of righteous living, or else God will not bless it. The Beatitudes come full circle with the promise for righteous persecution, for the promise is the same promise for the poor in spirit. Like the poor in spirit, those persecuted for righteousness’s sake receive the kingdom of heaven. God provides the kingdom of heaven for these people so they will have a place where they will no longer receive persecution. Instead, they will live in a place where everyone lives righteously like they do.

When Matthew tells his side of the crucifixion events, Matthew wants the reader to clearly see a Jesus persecuted for righteousness’s sake. When Christians talk about Jesus on the cross, they must include all aspects and images Jesus on the cross gives, which definitely includes penal substitution, but also includes Christ the victor just as much. When Jesus taught about true way to follow the Law, his teachings never went over well with the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders. Their hardened hearts towards his teachings, along with jealousy, drove them to want to send Jesus to the cross. Jesus was persecuted and died because he taught true righteousness. At the same time, the penal substation view of the cross is another death for righteousness’s sake. Jesus died on the cross, so we could become righteous.

Conclusion
 
Jesus truly lived as an example to Christians everywhere. Not only did he start his ministry teaching people how to live, but he lived them out himself. Matthew must have believed the Beatitudes were the most important teaching of Jesus, for not only does Matthew start out Christ’s ministry with the Beatitudes, but he makes sure everyone reading his Gospel can see Jesus live them out. If Christians truly want to live like Christ, they must have the attitude of  Christ, which are the Beatitudes.

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Metamorphoo (Romans 12:2)

Ever wonder where I get my interpretation? Ever get confused how I got my interpretation? Sometimes my literal interpretation agrees with a plain reading of the text, while other times my interpretation does not sound like the plain reading of the text, and yet I still insist it’s just as literal. That’s because I consider myself a contextual literalist; I even named my blog that. If you don’t know what it means, it’s right there in the blog description: “The most literal reading of the Bible is to understand the Bible in its original context: historical context, geographical context, cultural context and literary context.” That’s a lot to talk about right now and discuss, so what we’re going to do is just focus on one: the literary. I’m going to take a passage that’s very familiar to you, so familiar that I wouldn’t be surprised if some of you have it memorized, and I’m going to use the literary context to give the verse new meaning to you, deeper meaning to you, and to give application that will hit home, and perhaps you never thought about.

What is literary context? Literary context understands that while the Bible is a divine book, a book inspired by God, it is a book nonetheless. Therefore, it needs to be treated as such. What does literary context consist? Literary context concerns itself with the genre of the book. You don’t read a fictional novel like you read a non-fiction reference book. Same goes for the Bible. All the Bible books have different genres: Law, history, poetry, prophecy, Gospel, and epistles. These need to be read differently, too. Romans, the book our passage is from, is an epistle. More specially, it’s a Pauline epistle, which is a fancy way of saying it’s a letter Paul wrote. This is key for so many reasons, but one I want you to focus on is that Paul, as a very logical man, writes out all his epistles as a logical argument. This leads into the second importance of literary context.

Literary context understands the author has arranged the text in a manner that helps communicate his message. Literary arrangement can be broken down into 3 subcategories. First, there’s immediate context. Immediate context looks at how the sentences contribute to the paragraph. Does the author write deductively, where he starts out the paragraph with his main idea, and he spends the rest of the paragraph defending it with logic and reason, proofs and evidence? Does the author write inductively, making observations and then drawing a conclusion from the observations as his main point? Second, there’s near context. Near context looks at how the paragraphs and chapters contribute to the overall message and themes the author gives in his book. Third, there’s far context. Far context considers how the Bible book itself contributes to overall message and theology of the Bible. Let’s take a look at each, starting backwards with the far context.

With the far context, we want to consider how the Bible book, in this case, Romans, contributes to the overall message and theology of the Bible. The Bible comes in 4 acts. First, there’s the creation, where God creates the world and human beings. Second, the fall happens when sin enters the world. Third, God redeems humankind from the fall. Fourth, God begins re-creating or restoring the redeemed humanity. Now these 4 acts can be seen in smaller stories, too, but simply and generally speaking in terms of the Bible as a whole, the creation part happens in Genesis chapters 1 & 2, the Fall happens in Genesis 3, the Gospels focus in on the redemption part and the Epistles focus on the restoration part. So when we consider Romans in light of the far context, these 4 acts tell us that Romans, as an epistle will heavily talk about the restoration part of God’s plan for humanity. So we must ask ourselves, “What is Romans trying to teach us about God restoring humanity?” Keep that thought of restoration in the back of your head.

For the near context, how the paragraphs relate to each other in the book of Romans, I want to outline the book of Romans. For those of you who never read the whole book of Romans, this will be extremely helpful, but even for those who have read the whole book of Romans, this will help keep things in context. We Americans in this modern day like to dissect things to analyze small parts. (I dissected a worm and a frog in 6th grade; did you?) The only problem with dissected is that it tends to make us forget the bigger picture. This outline will serve to remind us of the big picture of Romans, and how the little part, the verse, Romans 12:2, contributes to the overall book. I see the book of Romans broken down into 5 sections. I will give each section a one-word title.

The first section, chapters 1-3, can be summed up as depravity. What is depravity? If you need a definition of depravity, look no further than the famous Romans 3:23. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Paul spends the first 3 chapters convincing his audience everyone is a sinner. See, it’s easy if Paul’s audience was all Jewish. God gave the Jews the Law, the Jews broke the Law, and thus they sinned. Paul reiterates that in Romans. But Paul’s audience is a church mixed with Jews and Gentiles. He can imagine his Gentile audience saying, “God can’t hold us accountable for any sin or wrongdoing. He never gave us the Law. Therefore, it would be unjust for God to hold us accountable.” But Paul would say it is just. In chapter 1, Paul argues that God has revealed himself (although not fully) in nature and has revealed what is right and wrong in nature (although not fully). By acting contrary to nature, the Gentiles have broken natural law and thus have sinned, too. (If you ever have the chance, read Romans 1 and take a good look at the examples Paul used to prove they acted against nature.  They are sins very relevant to the Roman culture.) Therefore, in chapter 3, Paul concludes all have sinned, and no one is righteous.

The second section, chapters 4-5, is about justification, as highlighted in Romans 5:1. “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” What is justification? Simply put, the debt of your sin has been paid in full. Taking the faith Abraham had and updating to the New Covenant and New Testament, Paul explains in chapters 4-5 Christians have been justified by grace through faith, and their debt of sin has been paid in full because of the work of Jesus Christ.

The third section, chapters 6-8, start off with 2 rhetorical questions Paul imagines his audience asking. If grace is such a good thing, should Christians continue sinning to get more grace? If Jesus pays the debt of sin, are Christians now allowed to sin? Paul answers both questions, “By no means!” Paul explains now that after Jesus paid the debt of sin, the Holy Spirit began a process of sanctification, which simply means that the Christian becomes less like the old, sinful self, but more like Jesus in righteousness and holiness. To continue sinning would contradict the work of sanctification the Holy Spirit has the Christian undergoing.
 
For the fourth section, Paul takes a break to talk about the sovereignty of God. This answered an important question to the church, mainly the Jews in the church. The Jews were always told they were the chosen people of God. How come Gentiles are now entering the family of God? Paul does his best to explain this, using illustrations like a tree grafted in. But even Paul gets to a points where he has to say, “I’ve explained it the best I can, but I know I can’t fully grasp it because God’s knowledge is greater than mine. But I know God is sovereign, so he can will it to be this and still be righteous and just. So I believe it and I will praise God for it.” Paul even ends this section with a little psalm or hymn of praise.

For the final section, Paul teaches his audience how to apply this teaching, or how to live it out. This brings right up to Romans 12, the chapter our verse comes from. To transition from near context to immediate, I’ll start at Romans 12:1.
 
Romans 12:1 (NIV 1984 ed.)-
"Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship."

Let’s stop at “therefore.” Do you know what “therefore” means? It means “Because of this…” or “Since this…” Because of what? Since what? Everything we just discussed in the near context! See, I was going somewhere with the near context. Because you were a depraved sinner. Because you were justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Because you were sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Because God is sovereign. (By the way, did you see the work of the Trinity in there? The justification of the Son, the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, the sovereignty of the Father.) Because of all this, this is how you are to respond: offer your bodies as living sacrifices.
 
Notice I put in bold living sacrifice. It brings us to our third form of literary context: figures of speech. Literary context thinks about the use of figures of speech. If you ever want a fun experiment, record every time you say or you hear someone use a figure of speech, and imagine what would happen if it was taken literally. Romans 12:1 is so famous among Christians, I have a feeling we’ve read it so much we forgot it’s a figure of speech, but it is. More specifically, it’s a paradox, which is an oxymoron created to make a profound statement. Paul’s audience, both Jew and Gentile Christians, would immediately recognized the paradox. In their old lives, both Jews and Gentiles would perform sacrifices. In both sacrifices, the blood would be completely drained from the animal. In no way could the animal live, except by the power of God. For the Jews, it was even more provoking. They remember the Law said God found human sacrifices detestable. How could Paul now call Christian to become any kind of sacrifice? So Paul has to tell his audience what a living sacrifice is. Paul does so in Romans 12:2, our verse.
 
Romans 12:2 (NIV 1984 ed.)-
“Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”

A living sacrifice no longer conforms to the patterns of this world, but is transformed by the renewing of the mind. Well, this in general defines what a living sacrifice is, but it still needs to specifically describe how it looks and how it acts. How does someone no longer conform to the pattern of the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind? To complete our immediate context, Paul uses the rest of Romans chapter 12 to provide clear, straightforward applications which would be obvious to the Christian reader, like be loving, patient and joyful. To complete the near context, Paul spends Romans chapters 13 to 16 describing in detail ways to apply this that might not make clear sense to the reader. Romans 13 is the best example. In Romans 13, Paul commands his readers to submit to the government and pay taxes. His audience, especially his Jewish audience who believes the Roman government is pure evil, might wonder, “Wait a minute, Paul, that sounds more like conforming to the patterns of the world and less like being transformed.” So Paul has to carefully explain how to submit to the government in a way that’s not conforming to the world, but is transforming.

But I believe there’s a hint right in Romans 12:2 for how a living sacrifice looks and acts. Did you notice bolded transformed? This brings up our fourth part of literary context. Literary context considers the original language of the text. To quote one of Rob Bell’s more famous sermons, “Contrary to popular belief, the Bible was not originally written in English.” Simply speaking, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek. To better understand the context, sometimes we need to study a word in the original language. In the case of Romans 12:2, let’s look at the Greek word for transformed.

The Greek word for transformed is μεταμορφόω. In an English transliteration, which is putting the Greek word in English letters so you know what sounds to make, it is metamorphoo (except in the case, the double o, oo, make a long O sound). When it comes studying Greek words, we must first look to see if it is a compound. In English, we use teeny tiny helping to connect our subjects and predicates, our nouns and verbs. In Greek, they just tag them on the words as prefixes and suffixes. Metamorphoo is one of those examples. Metamorphoo is a compound word. The prefix, meta, is preposition meaning “above” or “beyond.” The root word, morphoo, is a verb meaning “to form.” Put it together, metamorphoo literally means “to form above and beyond,” That’s what English translations translate it as “transformed” rather than merely “formed.”

When New Testament scholars want to better understand a word, they look at how the word gets used in other New Testament passage. The word metamorphoo appears 4 times in the New Testament in 4 different books, including this instance. 2 of those instances happen in the same story, although in different books. You know that means Gospels. The word metamorphoo appears in both Matthew and Mark’s telling of the Transfiguration. You remember the story. Jesus takes Peter, James and John up to the Mount of Olives. Then, all of a sudden, Jesus turns shiny glowy, next to Moses and Elijah. Both Matthew and Mark record that Jesus was transformed, that he was metamorphoo. When Jesus is transformed, metamorphoo, the disciples see Jesus in all his glory and splendor. I believe this has something to do with seeing Jesus in his full holiness and righteousness. So already, being transformed, being metamorphoo, has something to do with becoming more like Jesus, in his holiness and righteousness.

Something else we can also do to help understand Greek words, although not always, is see how we use the Greek word in English. We can’t do this always because English is not a Greek-based language, but English did borrow a lot of words from Greek. If English did borrow the word from Greek, we can look at the English use the get a better idea of the Greek word as well. Metamorphoo is one of those words. So I will provide 2 illustrations of how metamorphoo appears in the English language. Let me make a disclaimer here: None of these 2 ideas are original. In fact, these are the 2 most popular illustrations I hear when someone preaches or teaches on Romans 12:2. But I believe the reason these 2 illustrations are so popular is because they are relevant, they are applicable, and they hit home.

The first illustration is probably the most popular because it appeals to nature. Metamorphoo is where we get the English word metamorphosis from. We commonly associate metamorphosis as the process which the caterpillar turns into the butterfly.


It’s quite the process if you think about it. It’s not like the caterpillar just sprouts wings. The insect goes from a fat, furry, multi-legged, multi-segmented caterpillar to a butterfly with a sleek body and beautiful wings. What’s going on in that cocoon? Scientists, more specifically, biologists, were puzzled at this, too. So they did all kinds of experiments and observations. They x-rays, infrared scans, ultraviolet scans, ultrasounds (like it’s a baby), just to find out what’s going on in there. They discovered that while in the cocoon, the animal becomes a mush, so mushy that even with a little pin prick the creature would ooze out and die. What happens when this animal becomes the mush is that its DNA is being rewritten, just as it was written in the embryo. Ladies and gentlemen, this creature is literally being reborn (or as close to literal as possible). So our first illustration informs us that if we want to be transformed, we need to be born again.

Let me quickly remind you what it means to be born again. I’m going to throw some more Greek in here, and even a little bit of Hebrew. If it’s too much, you can ignore it, but I really think it adds something that we can easily forgot. First, to be reborn, you must repent of your sin. The Greek verb for repent, metanoeō (μετανοέω), comes from a Greek military term. The military command told the soldiers to immediately turn 180 degrees and flee. Pretty much, it’s the Greek equivalent of retreat. Both John the Baptist (Matthew 3:2) and Jesus (Matthew 4:17) both began their ministries with this command. Jesus commands us to retreat from sin. To be born again, you must turn 180 degrees, completely turning away from your sin, and flee from all possibilities of sinning. The old self lived in sin; the born again self turns from sin.

Second, to be reborn, you must believe, and I mean really believe. I notice a generation gap when talking about believing. Older generations define believing as an intellectual pursuit – it’s how you think. Younger generations understand believing to be an emotional pursuit – it’s how you feel. For the Old Testament Hebrew word, aman (אָמַן), and the Greek New Testament word pisteuo (πιστεύω), believing was both intellectual and emotional…and a third thing. It was also how you acted. As Christian author Dennis Hollinger would put it, believing is head, heart and hands. Believing isn’t just acknowledging a bunch of historical facts or doctrine about Jesus and believing is not just feeling Jesus in your heart; it’s both, and then some. It’s acting out what we think and feel. Believing is praying for rain and then leaving the house with an umbrella, even though the sun is shining. To truly be born again, you must believe, and believing affects how you think, how you feel and how you act.

Third, to be born again, you must choose to call on Jesus as your Lord. Sometimes American Christians have a habit of making the name “Lord” just an interchangeable name for “God.” But the Old Testament Hebrew word, Adonai (אֲדֹנָ֤), and the New Testament Greek word kurios (κύριος) not only can be translated “Lord” but also “master,” as in what servants and slaves called their master. Slaves and servants did not have their own will. Their will was the will of the master; they made their will the will of the master. Therefore, the master’s will and the slaves’ will was one. To be born again, you must make your will God’s will. Too often I have seen Christians do the opposite. They try to make God’s will their own, and they expect God to bless it. How much shock they receive when they don’t get what they want. Instead, if you want to be born again, you must your will God’s will. It goes back to the first point. The heart of most sin is selfishness. If you surrender your will, and the selfishness that goes with it, to God’s will, you will find it easier to repent from sin. It goes back to our second point. If you make God’s will your will, you will think like God thinks, feel like God feels, and act like God acts. You will truly believe. You aren’t completely born again until you have made Jesus your Lord and made Christ’s will your will.
 
But I know some of you are thinking, “I am born again. I have repented of my sin. I have believed with my head, heart and hands. I have made Jesus Lord and surrendered my will to his will. What does this passage mean for me?” Well, that brings us up to our second illustration. This illustration is probably the second most popular because it appeals to pop culture, more specifically 90’s pop culture. Metamorphoo, or more specifically, the morphoo part of metamorphoo is where we get the English term “morphing” as in the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers!

 

If during the 90’s you were too busy deciding if the better boy band was N*SYNC or the Backstreet boys, if you were too busy deciding if the better female singer was Brittany Spears or Christina Aguilera, if you were too busy deciding if the Super Nintendo was truly the best video game system, or if the Sega Genesis could truly do what Ninten-don’t, let me fill you in on the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. The premise of show was that after 10,000 years the evil Rita Repulsa was free, and she had one thing in mind: time to conquer earth. That’s a big problem for Earth, for Zordon, the being who put her in her prison, is stuck in an interdimensional wormhole. So Zordon calls 5 teenagers, and not any 5 teenagers, but 5 teenagers with attitude, to become the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.

Let me describe a typical episode, and trust me, this won’t take long, for unless the story arc took more than one episode, all the episodes. The show would usually start out one of the teenagers dealing with an inner conflict that would cause angst. They were typical inner conflicts that would cause teenagers angst in the 90’s: fear of spiders, fear of heights, pleasing the family, winning the martial arts competition, getting good grades, finding a date for the dance, etc. Rita Repulsa would take this inner conflict and turn into an external conflict by having her monster making minion Finster create a monster that would personify the conflict. Meanwhile, Rita would send her Putty Patrol to keep the Power Rangers occupied. The Putties were supposed to weaken the Power Rangers, but they always just served as warm up. When the Putties all fell defeated, then Rita’s monster was finally ready. No way could the Power Rangers defeat this monster; this monster has explosive attacks. At this time, one of the Power Rangers would yell it, “It’s Morphin time!” That’s when the teenagers would become the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers! Now they are prepared to take down the monster. Their suits defend them from the attacks of the monster, and their weapons give them the power destroy the monster. At this time, when morphed, that one Power Ranger dealing with the inner conflict discovers how to deal with the inner conflict, which in turn provides the solution to defeating the monster. Of course, Rita wasn’t giving up there. She would throw her wand down to earth, yelling, “Magic wand, make my monster grow!” The monster would grow as huge as a giant, smashing buildings. At that time, one of the Power Rangers would yell, “We need zord power!” Then Zordon would send the zords that corresponded with each Ranger’s power. Individually, these zords were pretty good, but together, they formed the megazord, and the megazord was great. It was usually when the Power Rangers came together and formed the megazord that they could take the monster down.

My brothers and sisters in Christ, it is Morphin time! Too often have too many Christians trudged through life, living and acting as if they stand alone in their faith walk. No lie, sometimes the life of a Christian can get difficult. That repenting thing I talked about earlier can get tough. Your sinful nature wants you to follow the selfish desires that lead to sin, and it can get difficult to fight that off. On top of that, you got Satan and his demons attacking you from the outside, bringing in temptations to turn from God. Truth is, Christians, God has not left you on your own to deal with it yourself. God has equipped you with every spiritual gift that you could need. Just as Zordon gave the Power Rangers their protective suits, God has given the every Christian the armor of God to protect them from evil forces. Just as Zordan gave the Power Rangers their weapons to destroy the monster, so God has given Christian spiritual gifts to demolish the temptations and sins they face. If you, as a Christian, don’t know how to use or activate those gifts, don’t worry, for you are not alone. If you are born again, God the Holy Spirit is living within you. He will show you how to use them and give you the knowledge, wisdom and power to use them. But perhaps some of you still feel alone. Even with the Holy Spirit alive in you, sometimes it’s still hard to feel God. Don’t worry, God knows, that’s why God provided the church. God has provided the church as another to see the Lord working in your life. Just like the Power Rangers could finally defeat the monster when they came together in the megazord, sometimes the solutions to the problems and needs in your life is someone in the church. I truly believe that if evil brings conflict or angst into your life, and God has not gifted you the solution, then that means God has gifted someone in your church with the solution, and God wants you two to work together to fight that evil. Heck, I believe it so much that if you have spiritual gift, it is less likely you have it to solve your problems (although if it does, good for you), and more likely to solve someone else’s problem. This doesn’t mean we go tell other people how to live their lives. Rather, the next time you hear a prayer request or a need in the church, not only pray that God would answer that prayer, but pray, “God, am I that answer to prayer?"
 
I hope the literary context gave you a new, deeper understanding of Romans 12:2. If you are not born again, I pray that you make that decision to repent of your sin, believe with all your head, heart and hands, and you make Jesus Lord, surrendering your will to his, so you can truly be born again. If you are born again, I pray that you morph, accepting the power the Holy Spirit has given you and using it when in need. Don’t worry when things get tough. You’re not alone. You have the Holy Spirit in you, and you have the Holy Spirit living in the church. Look toward the church when you have problems and needs, and in turn, look to help those in the church with needs when you have the solution. You weren’t meant to be a 90’s teenager with attitude; you were meant to be a Power Ranger. You weren’t meant to be a caterpillar; you were meant to be a butterfly. It’s morphing time! Now morph and become what God intended you to be.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Weltanschauung (Proverbs 3:5,6)

Weltanschauung. Let me say it again, but this time I’ll stand back, in case I don’t say it, but spray it. Weltanschauung. A simple word-for-word translation of this German word would render the world “worldview,” but linguists (that is, someone who studies language) wouldn’t call worldview a definition for weltanschauung. A person’s weltanschauung is a worldview that fully covers beliefs about philosophy, religion, morality, government, society, politics and economics. To have a weltanschauung, the person just doesn’t know about these topics, but the person fully understands them, has come to a conclusion about, can fully defend his or her stances, and knows how they affect life and how to live them out. The book of Proverbs stresses that people need to have a weltanschauung, but mores specifically, God’s people need to have a godly weltanschauung, and not a human weltanschauung.
 
If you have your Bible book with you, turn to Proverbs 3:5. If you have a Bible app on your tablet or smartphone, boot up your Bible, and put in your search bar Proverbs 3:5.
 
Proverbs 3:5,6 ESV- 
“Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.”

Before we look at the text itself, we need to look at the structure of Hebrew poetry. We have to look at the structure of Hebrew poetry because Hebrew poets used the structure Hebrew poetry to get their message across to their audience. To ignore the structure of a Hebrew poem would be like saying there’s no difference between a sonnet and a limerick. Hebrew poets formed their poetry around poetic parallelisms, or parallels of arrangement and idea, where one line parallels another line in thought. Poetic parallelism appear in a few forms. One kind of parallelism is synonymous parallelism, in which two lines say the same thing using different word that are typically synonyms, hence synonymous.

Now take a look at verse five. Verse five is a synonymous parallelism. It may not seem like a clear-cut parallelism in English, but the Hebrew says differently. Trust parallels lean. The Hebrew word betah, more fully means to rely on heavily. Lean, in Hebrew, is tishshan. Literally, tishshan translates into “lean,” but it has a figurative meaning of trusting in somone. In ancient times, kings would lean against their ministers, magistrates and governors in public to symbolize that the king trusted that person with the power the king gave the person, and so the public should trust the person in power as well. The Lord does not parallel “your own”, but rather parallels “not your own,” for, as this passage teaches, the Lord’s ways are not our ways. Heart parallels understanding. Once again, this pair of words better parallels in the Hebrew. In modern-day America, we associate the heart with our emotions, or how we feel. The Hebrews associated lev, the Hebrew word for “heart,” not only with emotions and how a person felt, but also intellect and how a person thought. Solomon probably meant it in the latter sense, for the latter sense best parallels “understanding.” Binyat, the Hebrew word for “understanding,” comes from two words translated as “between” and “to discern.” Compounded, binyat literally means “to discern between.” This connotation implies that understanding involves discerning between morally right and morally wrong. Put it all together, Solomon carefully chooses his words and parallelisms to teach his son to trust and heavily rely on God’s way of thinking, not his own or anyone one else’s, especially in terms of morals.

How does someone think like God thinks? The first half of verse six provides a good start to thinking like God. It reads, “In all your ways acknowledge him.” The Hebrew word translated into “acknowledge” in its base form is yada, Yada simply means “to know,” but it carries deeper connotations. This type of knowing is more intimate. It means getting to know someone or something better. It means knowing to improve your relationship with someone. As the prepositional phrase “in all your ways” hints, it’s an all-encompassing knowledge that affects how you think and how you act. Solomon instructs his son to first get to know the Lord as much as possible in order to think like God and act like God.
 
At the end of verse six, Solomon gives a blessing for those who acknowledge the Lord and think like he does. Proverbs 3:6b says that God “will make your path straights.” Commentators debate what this could mean. Some commentators suggests it means an easy life, while others suggest it means a simple life. I think the answer goes back our parallelism. The first half of first verse five ends with thinking from the heart, the second half of verse five ends with understanding, the first half of verse six ends with acknowledging God, all intellectual pursuits. So the second half of verse six must also end with something intellectual. Therefore, I believe the blessing of “straight paths” refers to thinking straight. For those who choose to think like God instead of thinking like man, God blesses them with straight, clear thinking.
 
If anyone in the Bible got this idea, the apostles in Acts got it down. In Acts chapter five, the high priest and the Sanhedrin council call the apostles in after an angel frees them from prison and they return to preaching in the temple. Previously, the Sanhedrin had charged the apostles to no longer preach about Jesus publically, and in exchange, they wouldn’t get in big trouble. Sounds like a good compromise, right? Not for the apostles. They went right back to preaching in the temple courts. When asked for a defense, Peter and the apostles answer in Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than men!” I’m not sure if Peter and the apostles had this Proverb in the back of their head, but they knew had to think like God, even if it meant disagreeing with the ruling council. In return, they got the blessing Proverbs 3:6b records. Acts 5:41 says that apostles left there rejoicing. Anyone else facing the hard pressing judgments of the Sanhedrin would walk away discouraged, but not the apostles. They rejoiced because they knew the suffering came about doing God’s will. They knew preaching the name of Jesus was God’s will because they trusted in God’s understanding and thought like God.
 
Christians today constantly have to vie with outside worldviews trying to compete with a godly worldview. Therefore, Christians should constantly remind themselves that they need to trust with God’s understanding and not lean on man’s understanding. I encourage you that whenever a secular view challenges your godly worldview, just repeat Proverbs 3:5 to yourself as reminder that you stand behind God’s truth. When the world tells you that those group of cells in a woman’s uterus is just an extension of her body, which she can do as she pleases, you must trust in the Lord, and lean not on our own understanding. When the world tells you that two men or two women marrying each other is love, you must trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. When the world teaches the world and life came about after billions of years of chance lining up, you must trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. When the world tells you that the only way to bring about peace is to engage in more war, you must trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding.

Sometimes the Christian’s greatest obstacle to obtaining a godly worldview can be himself or herself. Christians too often get tempted to think God’s will is their will, instead of making their will God’s will. American Christians pursue the American dream, expecting God to bless it. If a Christian gets too caught up in this idea, the Christian can face disappointment when they don’t get that safe, easy life. Instead, if the Christian starts thinking like God thinks, the Christian can see clearly how God has blessed him or her and will continue him or her. A girl might struggle for a while in her faith when her body will not produce a child, something she always wanted. When she surrenders her will to God, she can think the way God thinks, and she can see how God is moving. God could lead to adopt a child and provide love to a child who might have grown up in a home without love. And all because she thought like God.

In closing, I pray you may have a weltanschauung, and not just any weltanschauung, but a godly weltanschauung. May your weltanschauung guide you to think more like God and less like the world or yourself. And may in turn God show you the way clearly.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Creation (Part 1): Ex Nihlo

Introduction

 


The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is a comedic science fiction piece, written by Douglas Adams, a British comedian who has worked with other British comedians, such as Graham Chapman, who is most famous for starting the comedy group Monty Python. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy has gone from radio show to television show to books and to a movie. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy begins with the main character, Arthur Dent, waking up one morning to find out his house is going to be demolished that very morning in order to make room for an interstate highway. That same afternoon, Arthur Dent finds out that his home planet Earth is going to be destroyed in order to make room for an intergalactic highway. Unknown to him, Arthur’s friend Ford Prefect is an alien, and Ford knows how to escape and survive by hitchhiking throughout the galaxy. The whole story focuses around Arthur Dent’s adventures as he hitchhikes through the galaxy.

On one of his adventures, Arthur learns that, many millennia ago, in a planet far away, an ancient alien civilization wanted to know the answers to “life, the universe, and everything.” So the ancient civilization invents a machine to give them this answer. It takes centuries for this machine to be invented and built, and it takes more centuries for the machine to process the answer. But after several years, the machine finally gives the alien civilization the answer: 42. After a while of arguing between the aliens and the machine whether a number is a legitimate answer for such a profound question, the machine helps reveal to the aliens that they really don’t know what the question of “life, the universe and everything” is, for if they did, they would know 42 is the perfect answer to it. When the alien people ask the machine, if it knew the question, the machine sadly said it did not, but it could give them instructions on how to build the machine that would tell them the question. This new machine would be called “Earth.”

By the time this hits the conclusion, it will come full circle to explain why this is so important. But for now, ponder at the ancient alien civilization’s curiosity to find the answers to “life, the universe and everything.” Douglas Adams seems to be suggesting here that, if intelligent life exists on other planets, they too would want to know the answers to “life, the universe and everything,” just like human beings do on planet Earth. In fact, psychologists say that’s exactly why religion exists on planet Earth. According to psychologists, religion exists to answer 4 questions: origins (Where did we come from?), meaning (What are we here for?), morals (What is right and wrong?), and destiny (Where are we supposed to be going?). Another way to look at it is that religion exists to give humans the answers about their past (origins), present (meaning and morals) and future (destiny). Christianity indeed is a religion an attempts to answer all these questions. To answer them all right here and right now is too big of a task, so for now, let’s just focus on one. This time, let’s focus on The Origin of Life and the Universe.

The Testimony of the “Typical” Christian

Before we dive into any Biblical knowledge or scientific knowledge, let’s start with a testimony. I always believe that it’s easier to tackle hard subjects when we understand where people are coming from with their life’s story. When it comes to this subject, however, it seems hard to find a single testimony from a single person that gives the stereotypical testimony of what the average Christian goes through. Even my own testimony is far from average. So what I have decided to do is create a fictional, hybrid testimony of what a “typical” Christian’s testimony might look like. We’ll even give the guy the name Christian.

Christian was born and raised in a Christian home. Being born and raised in a Christian family, Christian began going to church since he was one week old. At age 3, when Christian began preschool, he also began Sunday school. Since the church’s Sunday school curriculum goes in order of Bible books, the first Sunday school lesson Christian gets is the Creation story, right out of Genesis 1. At the young age of 3, this is how Christian understands how life and the universe came to be in existence-

In the beginning: heavens and the earth
1st day: light, darkness, day night
2nd day: The sky
3rd day: Land, seas, plants
4th day: Sun, moon, stars
5th day: Fish in the sea and birds in the air
6th day: Animals and humans
7th day: God finished and rested

Therefore, at the age of 3, the Creation story, right out of Genesis 1, is Christian’s answer to life and the universe. As the Sunday school curriculum loops, this story will be reinforced throughout Christian’s life again and again. This view will be uncontested throughout Christian’s preschool years and elementary school years.
 
 

Then, halfway through Christian’s childhood, whether it be as early as middle school or as late as high school, this view will be contested. See, Christian goes to the local public school. One day, Christian’s public school science teacher announces, “For the next chapter, the class will look at the origins of life and the universe.” Christian thinks to himself, “Cool! We’ve never talked about the Bible in school before!” (Christian sometimes wondered why, but never thought about it too hard, for he figured it was a complicated reason.) “It will be new and exciting to talk about the Bible with my classmates.” Christian’s science teacher continues, “This next chapter is on evolution.” All Christian can think is, “Wait, what?” but has no time to deal with his confusion, for he has to keep up with his teacher’s lecture to take notes. The teacher throws brand new terms at him, like macroevolution, microevolution, mutations, natural selection, primordial soup, Cambrian explosion and survival of the fittest. All these new terms just through Christian into a deeper confusion. What’s really making Christian’s head spin now his answer on the Origin of Life and the Universe is split between Creation and Evolution.

 


Christian makes his way home, still having a headache from all the confusion science class gave him. He decides that maybe the best way to figure this all out is to get on the family computer, log on to the internet and do his own research on the subject of evolution. His confusion does not clear up, however, when he finds out that not all the scientists can agree on evolution. Some evolutionists are calling themselves “Darwinists.” They say that Charles Darwin got it right originally, and since then, evolution has been tainted. The most pure evolution theory is the one Darwin wrote up. Other evolutionists call themselves “Neo-Darwinists.” They claim that Charles Darwin was on the right track, but really didn’t know as much as the science world knows today. The Neo-Darwinists claim that they have updated Darwin’s theories to be more accurate. On top of that, Christian discovers that, while all evolutionists agree life evolved, they cannot all agree on how life started. Some say that life started in a primordial soup: a lake with all the right building blocks of life got struck by lightning, which was the energy boost to put the blocks together and form life. Other evolutionists say that Earth only contained 99% of the building blocks, but one day, a meteorite with the other 1% hit earth, and when it hit earth, the blocks began building life. Still others claim that life evolved out of crystals evolving. All these theories within the evolution theory has Christian’s head spinning.

 


At the same time, it’s giving Christian a smug sense of satisfaction. “Hmm,” Christian thinks to himself. “These evolution scientists can’t agree on anything. They have no idea what they are talking about. This must mean Creation must be the right answer because we Christians have it all together.” Christian there and then decides that his essay for this chapter in his science class will be on how Creation is right and evolution is wrong. So Christian begins doing his research on proving how Creation is right. To Christian’s surprise, he finds out that the Christians can’t agree on Creation either! He discovers Christians fighting and arguing over 5 different theories of Creationism: Literal 6-day Theory, Day-Age Theory, Gap Theory, Intermitten Theory and Literary Framework Analogy. Now Christian find himself confused about Creationism, too, because he has to deal with just as many theories as he does with evolution!

 

On top of that, Christian finds the Creationists attacking the evolutionists, and the evolutionists attacking the Creationists. Christian yells out in anguish, “Can’t we all just get along?!” And one theory stands out and says, “Yes, we can.” The theory calls itself Theistic Evolution. It claims the best of best worlds: it supports the observations made in science, while still believing in the God of the Bible. But this compromise doesn’t help Christian; it just makes things worse. The Creationists and Evolutionists were going at it so hard. The only thing they seemed to agree on is that a person had to be on one side or the other. They might also agree that trying to find a compromise would lead to contradiction. Truly a middle ground can’t exist…right?

 


Poor Christian. He’s as confused as ever. Perhaps your testimony might sound somewhat similar to that. Maybe you’re as confused as Christian. I plan on helping you. First, we’re going to look at the testimony of history, for history’s testimony is just as strong as the typical Christian’s testimony. Next, we are going to look at 8 Icons of Evolution, 8 Icons which all evolution scientists hold as proof of their theory, and we will test them ourselves and see how well they stand. Then, we’ll look at 6 different views of Creation, examining each one’s strengths and weaknesses. Finally, we’ll conclude by drawing scientific, Biblical and theological conclusions, and even come full circle to Arthur Dent hitchhiker through the galaxy.

The Testimony of History

Just like the “typical” Christian’s testimony, history can have a powerful testimony on the subject at hand. Many people’s beliefs, possibly including the “typical” Christian, can be influenced by their time in history. This influence can include everything from scientific discoveries to changes in religion and philosophy to simply what’s popular in a certain culture. Therefore, this section will do a brief and compact (in no way exhaustive) look at the history of mankind’s answer to the origins of life and the universe, looking at certain milestones in history.

Ancient History, Ancient Religions

 

The section title simply sums it all up, but I will expand on it a bit. Simply put, if you were living in the ancient world, whatever society or culture you grew up, you believed in that society’s/culture’s religion, and whatever myth that religion gave you about how the world came to be, that’s what you believed to be true. So if you were an ancient Egyptian, you believed the ancient Egyptian creation myth. If you were a Canaanite, you believed the Canaanite creation myth. If you were a Philistine, you believed the Philistine creation myth. If you were Assyrian, you believed the Assyrian creation myth. If you were Babylonian, you believed the Babylonian creation myth. If you were Persian, you believed the Persian creation myth. So on and so forth.

The Greek Philosophers


After last section, I bet would expect to continue on saying, “If you were an Ancient Greek, you’d believe the Greek creation myth.” Indeed, this was true for the most part, but it wasn’t true for all of history. There were the Greek philosophers. If you remember from your Ancient Greek history class, the Greek government charged the Greek philosophers with 2 crimes: corrupting the youth and denying the existence of the Greek gods and goddesses. Yes, the Greek gods were charged with atheism, and rightfully so. Now the Greek philosophers probably weren’t the first atheists, but they were the first to make it “a thing.” Before then, if someone was an atheist, their thought pattern was somewhere along the lines of, “I practice my religion because it’s part of my culture, but I really don’t believe it.” The Greek philosophers were the first to make a philosophy and a religion, which could be publically proclaimed and practiced.

Once the Greek philosophers came to be atheists, they must have realized something else was now missing. “Wait a minute,” maybe one thought aloud, “all these years we’ve believed the world came to be through the gods and goddesses. If the gods and goddesses don’t exist, then how does the world exist?” So the Greek philosophers did what they did best: they thought. They made observations in nature, they thought about them, and then they made conclusions. Their conclusions would be some of the first bits and pieces of evolution. I bet you’re thinking to yourself, “What are you doing? You’re hinting that once any kind of theistic religion is taken out of logic and reasoning, then the clear answer is evolution. You’re not helping your stance!” Ah, but I am. I am going to argue the complete opposite. It’s not when one takes out theism, one gets science. Rather, I argue that once one inserts atheism, one gets evolution. Throughout all of this, I am going to continually make a connection between atheism and evolution. Evolution will only arise from atheists attempting science. We’ll see it happen again in history.

Paley and the Watchmaker

Shortly after the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire conquered as the dominant empire. Those familiar with history will recall that in 313 A.D. Roman Emperor Constantine turned the Roman Empire into the Holy Roman Empire by establishing Christianity as the state religion. Everyone in the empire had to be Christian, and when everyone did, they all became believers in the Creation story as portrayed in Genesis 1 and 2, just like young Christian did. It would stay this way throughout the Early Church years, the medieval church years and the Reformation church years. I don’t want anyone to get the idea, however, that throughout those decades and centuries, everyone blindly believed in a 6-day creation. During those years, people were developing teleological arguments, or defense of a Creator God creating the world using logic and reasoning. True, this isn’t the science known today (mainly because the scientific method of today wasn’t invented until the 1900s), but this is the logic and reasoning used by the Greek philosophers to start the ball rolling with evolution. Such men who made a teleological argument were Thomas Aquinas, William Turner and John Ray. For my example, I will use one of the later and more recent examples, William Paley.


 

Suppose you’re taking, let’s say the beach. During your walk, you see a watch on the ground (and for this argument, it’s an analogue watch.) What’s the first thought that comes to your mind? Pause from reading this and actually think about it. Got it? I can’t guess exactly what you thought. Maybe you thought, “Somebody lost their watch,” or “What a nice watch,” or “Lucky me! I got a new watch!” But I can tell you what you didn’t think:  “Wow! Centuries of weathering and erosion has produced such a lovely watch!” Why not? It’s not natural to think that way.



 


How did Stonehenge get here? How about the Easter Island statues? It’s a trick question. Nobody knows. People have been guesses, anywhere from ancient societies to even aliens. But no one dares suggests thousands of years of weathering and erosion. On the same note, take a little child to Mount Rushmore. The child doesn’t need to know who they are; just ask the kid how he or she thinks the faces got there. The story might get crazy, but I guarantee that the child will never say, “Oh, clearly it’s hundreds of years of weathering and erosion.” It’s not natural to think that way.

Why is it not natural to think that way? When we see design, we want to believe there has to be a creator. When we see a complex design, we have to believe there’s an intelligent creator. That’s the heart of the teleological argument. Despite all the science Christians have discovered, this argument is still one of the strongest arguments for God. Sure, it alone will not bring you the Christian God, but it will at least get someone pondering there is a Creator God out there.

Charles Darwin and The Origin of the Species

Let me give a short testimony to the life of Charles Darwin before diving into his contributions with evolution. Believe it or not, Charles Darwin also went to Christ’s College seminary, an offshoot of Cambridge University, to become an Anglican clergyman. While successful, Darwin never really liked it. What Darwin did like was his cousin Emma Wedgwood. The two of them fell in love, got married and had children. The marriage, however, far from happily ever after. Two children died before seeing their second birthday, and one died at the age of 10. This took a toll on Darwin’s faith and beliefs. It’s hard to say where Charles Darwin was faith-wise before these tragic events. No one knows if he was conservative or liberal, or if he was evangelical or deist. But after having to put three children in the ground, Charles Darwin was an atheist. (Even if Charles Darwin believed in God after that, his view of God would be far from the Christian God of the Bible.)

While seminary at Christ’s College never caught Charles Darwin’s interest, the field of naturalism at Cambridge University did catch his interest. So Darwin transferred out of the seminary program at Christ’s College and transferred into the naturalism field in Cambridge University. During his studies, Charles worked on the harbor, unloading and loading ships. Some of Darwin’s favorite ships to work on were the one sailing with the naturalist scientists. The naturalist scientists sailed across the world, studying nature. Charles loved to listen to their tales. When the naturalist scientists heard that Darwin was pursuing the naturalism field, they invited him to join them on one of their expeditions. After much coaxing, Charles decided to go. On December 27, 1831, the HMS Beagle set off on a worldwide expedition, surveying wildlife around the world. The highlight of the trip was the Galapagos Islands, a group of islands off the coast of Ecuador, because scientists believed man had not touched these islands since the dawn of time. On the Galapagos Islands, Darwin’s favorite animals to observe were the platypus, the tortoise, the mockingbird, and especially the finches. Charles would write all his observations down in a journal, which the world would later know as The Origin of the Species. The voyage ended about a year later. Upon arriving home, Darwin took his journal, brought it to his desk upstairs, put it in a drawer, shut it, and completely forgot about it. That would have been the end of that…if all his other naturalists buddies were like that. No, they were more excited about their finds and discoveries. They rushed to have them edited and published. One of the naturalists, a close friend of Charles, wrote in his acknowledgements, “I’d like to thank Charles Darwin for his observations and all his help.” People who read this were bewildered. What’s the former seminary student doing studying evolution? Don’t the godless believe in evolution and naturalism? Darwin now felt obligated to defend himself. On November 24, 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of the Species.

Let me take the time to mention a few things about The Origin of the Species, which will include some misconceptions. As stated above, Charles Darwin never really intended to publish the observations he made in his journal. That’s simply what the journal was: mere observations. Darwin does not make any big theories. He does not propose a big bang start of the universe. He does not propose a single common ancestor. Yes, late in life, in a correspondence letter, Darwin says he’d be open to the idea of a single common ancestor, but the conditions would have to be right, which would include a lot of “if”s. When Charles published his journal, science did not know the difference between microevolution, which is changes that happen within a species (or sometimes a genus), and macroevolution, which is changes that bring about a new species or a new genus. Today, people know the difference, and looking at The Origin of Species from today’s standpoint, the truth is Darwin only speaks of microevolution, not macroevolution. Darwin also faced other difficulty in his time. Charles did not know about DNA, chromosomes or genes. Darwin also didn’t know how complex cells, tissues and organs really were. To roughly quote the movie documentary Expelled, “Darwin saw the cell as like a mud hut; today we know the cell is more like the International Space Station.” All Charles could go by were phenotypes, or outward appearances. By only going by phenotypes and not getting down to the cellular level, Darwin’s observations were basic, simple and elementary. Now of days, Darwin’s theories need to be constantly updated to fit modern science.

 As I close out this section on Darwin, I would like to leave with a quote from his book-

 


 
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed [concerning eye, ear, etc.], which could not possible be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would break down. But I can find no such case.” –Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species, p. 189

I know I said a lot about Charles Darwin, but just keep a few important facts about him throughout all of this. First, I draw your attention to the connection between atheism and evolution. Once the death of his children brings Darwin to atheism, he will then proceed to making theories about evolution. Second, keep in mind that Darwin’s Origin of the Species is merely observations, and merely observations of the physical, outward appearance at that. Third, remember that even Charles Darwin puts a way to debunk his theory in his book: by proving that complex organs cannot come about by numerous, successive, slight modifications.

The Scopes Monkey Trial

 


Up to this point, evolution has always been the minority view. Since the Christianizing of the Roman Empire in 313 AD, Creation as stated in Genesis 1-2 has been the majority. The decade is the 1920s. The place is Dayton, TN. The small town of Dayton is in financial trouble. Its economy is collapsing. It needs to desperately get money back in the town, and I mean desperate. What’s hurting the most is their tourism industries. After all, why would someone want to visit a small town such as Dayton? They need to get people back into Dayton. But how? Nothing like a good controversy to get people’s attention. Recently, the Tennessee state legislature pass a controversial law making teaching Creation official and teaching evolution illegal. What a better way to challenge the law and grab people’s attention by teaching evolution. But who will do it? The science teacher is a good teacher and is loved by all. The school can’t risk losing him to some jail time. So the school gets John Scopes. John Scopes is the football coach and substitute gym teacher. He has a knowledge of teaching and somewhat a knowledge of science, so teaching evolution shouldn’t be hard for him. So for a day, John Scopes taught evolution in science class. Of course the kids can’t keep their mouths shut. They run home and tell their parents, and the parents demand for his arrest. The arrest is quite the spectacle. The authorities find John Scopes at the local soda fountain, enjoying an ice cream and soda float. All the local press is there, snapping away pictures as the police officer puts John in hand cuffs and escorts him out the building. Like I said, quite the show.

 


The show didn’t stop there. Dayton got exactly what they wanted. Overnight, the town size multiplied. All its hotels were booked, as well as the hotels of the surrounding towns. The fanfare of it all turned the town into a fair. Vendors set up food booths and game booths. People could go to tables to purchase books and pamphlets about the creation and evolution debate. Street preachers would stand on soap boxes on every corner, preaching against the evils of evolution, along with a “turn or burn” call to repentance. All this did help Dayton’s economy. The event brought in people, and the people brought in money. But it was all at a cost. The town of Dayton turned itself into a carnival.

 


The prosecutor was William Jennings Bryan. Bryan was a Democratic politician and lawyer. He had taken the Democratic nomination for president three times, losing all three. Hoping to get a fourth nomination, Bryan decided to take the case as the prosecutor, believing that if he won, he could define himself as the Christian choice for President, securing the Christian vote. Defending John Scopes was attorney Clarence Darrow. Darrow was a lawyer for the ACLU. The trial took 7 days and 2 days. It didn’t help that there was a heat wave during the week of the trial. Since Tennessee law required all men in court to wear full suits, the judge had to pass a ruling allowing me to take off the jackets, and one day, since the courtroom was so packed with hot bodies, the judge had to rule to have the trial outside on the courtyard. During the 7-day trial, the trial began debating whether or not John Scopes taught evolution, but the trial quickly turned to debating if evolution should be taught it schools. The climax of the trial came on the last day, when Bryan called himself to trial as an expert witness. Remember, this is not the “I saw him did it” witness. This is the expert witness, someone who has specialized knowledge in the field, like a forensic scientist. Someone should have defined expert witness to Bryan, for Bryan appeared to be quite opposite. Darrow would volley at him simple questions like, “How can the Bible say the sun was created after the earth, when science says the earth is millions of year old and the sun is billions of years old?” and Bryan could not answer them. All he could do is parrot what preachers and teachers told him.

Once both men rested their cases, the jury deliberation took a matter of 9 minutes. Who was the winner? Well, that’s debatable. The jury decided that John Scopes was guilty. There was no debate about that. The guy taught evolution; he was guilty! He was fined $100 (with inflation, today that would be $1,345). If John Scopes was declared guilty, how is the win debatable? Remember I said the trial quickly shift to whether John Scopes taught evolution to whether evolution should be taught it school. In the debate whether John Scopes taught evolution, the prosecution won, but in the debate whether evolution should be taught in schools, the defense won. The defense made William Jennings Bryan, and anyone who believed in creation, as a dumb redneck hick. The truly intelligent believe the world came about through evolution. This is turning point in history, especially American history. From here on out, evolution takes the front burner and creation takes the back burner. Evolution is the majority and creation in the minority.

And that’s where we are today.

(If you ever want to get a better understanding of what happened at Scopes Monkey trial, just watch the movie Inherit the Wind. This movie has been done and redone a few times, and each one is good.)

The 8 Icons of Evolution

This section is named after a book of the same name written by Jonathan Wells. The Icons of Evolution are examples that all evolution scientists will use as “proofs” to back up evolution. In his book, Wells has ten; I have eight. Some of our proofs are similar, while others are different. I will make a quick disclaimer here. I am not a scientist; I am a theologian. I did, however, take a college-level science course on the creation vs. evolution debate. I read many books and articles about both sides of the debate, I listened to lectures and debates, I even performed experiments and participated in a class debate of my own. From all of it, combining it with my logic and reasoning, the same logic and reasoning a Greek philosopher would use, I concluded what I am about to report about these Icons of Evolution to be true. I hope you do, too. Let’s take a look at these 8 Icons of Evolution

Embryology Record

 


Who remembers seeing this chart in science class? It’s a picture with eight different species of animals (one of which is human) over three stages in the embryo cycle. Evolution scientists will point out how all eight of these species looks very similar during all three cycles. Evolution scientists will claim this is evolution at hand. They claim that it shows that all eight species come from a common animal ancestor, and the differences can be accounted for through slight modifications through mutation.

Ever notice that this chart is always a drawing and never photographs? Surely with the technology of today, the drawings can be replaced by photographs. They can be, but the evolution scientists won’t do it. That’s because they if they did, everyone would notice the species are all quite the different at these three stages. These drawings are really charactertures of the embryos, overemphasizing the similarities to make them noticeable. Now some of the artists who draw these will acknowledge that they are charactertures, but will quickly defend that they only did it to emphasize the similarities. First of all, if the embryological record is really evidence of evolution, shouldn’t it be obvious to be seen, and not needed emphasis? Second, like I said, these similar characteristics aren’t emphasized, there are overemphasized. Furthermore, Ernst Haeckel, the man who first drew up these examples, was extremely selective in the species he chose and the stages he chose. He chose these stages because they are the three times in embryo cycle where the eight animals do look the most similar. If anyone looked at the stage before the first stage, the stage after the third stage, and the in-between phases, these animals would all look very different. He chose those animals because they do look similar in certain stages. If Haeckel would have choose other, even animals that are supposedly “closer related” to each other, they would look much different. This drawing is so selective, it is biased.

And then there were 7.

Homologous Structures

 


Who remembers seeing this chart in science class? The picture shows the limbs from several different vertebrate animals. Evolution scientists will point out that these structures are very similar in nature. Once again, evolutionists say homologous structures point to evolution. All these animals had a single common ancestor, and over time each animal evolved its structure to adjust to its needs through natural selection and mutation.

Ever notice how these pictures are mostly always color coded to show the onlooker how the structures are similar? Why do I need color coding? Once again, if this is really evidence, shouldn’t it be obvious? It’s not obvious because they are different structures. If they were really similar structures, we, as humans, would be able to run like horses, swim like whales and fly like bats. Even when they group similar animals together, like “runners,” “swimmers,” “fliers” and “graspers,” they still do each function incredibly differently. Even if scientists want to call these homiologous structures instead of homologous structures (homio is the prefix of “similar,” while homo is the prefix for “same”), I would argue this is not evidence of evolution, but rather evidence for an intelligent creator. If I invented a new car engine, I would use it in all my cars, including my trucks and my vans. Sure, I would modify to work for a different vehicle (perhaps the truck needs eight cylinders, while the car only needs six), but I wouldn’t invent a brand new, totally different engine for it. In the same way, only an intelligent creation, by design, would use similar structures to creature perfectly functioning animals.

And then there were 6.

Vestigial Parts

Vestigial parts are body parts that no longer any function in the body. Evolution scientists claim vestigial parts prove evolution because the body has evolved beyond using that part. The most common example evolutionist point towards is the whale’s foot bone. They claim it proves that the whale at once had a land-dwelling ancestor, but the species eventually evolved back to a swimming creature, and since swimmers don’t need feet, the foot bone became a vestigial part.

According to the theory of evolution, evolution happens to advance a species. It would seem like the vestigial parts do help advance the species because the species no longer needs that part. But that’s not always the case. Sometimes, when a part becomes useless, it becomes a hindrance. The best example is the human vestigial part: the appendix. The appendix seems to have no apparent use for the human today (scientists hypothesized at one point it helped humans with digestion). But today, the appendix is a ticking time bomb. It is full of poison. If it bursts, it can kill the person. Even if the person survives, it can make the person’s life miserable. So much for advancing the species. Real advancement would be if evolution could make the vestigial part disappear altogether.

And then there were 5.

Fossil Record

Shrek would compare the earth to an onion, and Donkey would compare the earth to a cake, because the earth’s crust has layers. Each layer comes from a different time period in the earth’s natural history. The further down one goes, the further back in history one goes. Each layer has different fossils, indicating different plants and animals. The lower layers, representing the earlier years, have fewer fossils, and the higher layers, representing more recent years, have more fossils. Evolutionist scientists point this out as a proof of evolution, showing that the reason the earth has so many species today is that they all evolved from a common ancestor back then.

In making this proof, evolution scientists, however, have forgotten about one of their laws of evolution. According to the theory of evolution, growth, natural selection, mutations, and overall evolution must happen at a constant rate, without time borders. The fossil records ruin all of this. Let me simplify this to explain it. If the evolution growth rate was a base 2, the first generation would have 1 species, the second generation would have 2 species, the third generation would have 4 species and the fourth generation would have 8. If the growth rate was a base 3, the first generation would have 1 species, the second generation would have 3, the third generation 9, and the fourth 27. If it was a base 4, the first generation would have 1 species, the second generation would have 4, the third generation 16, and the fourth 64. If a base of 5, the first generation would have 1 species, the second generation would have 5, the third generation 25, and the fourth 125. But it doesn’t work like that at all. In reality, the earth’s layers might start out with a constant, but then that constant go ballistic in every direction. Sticking with our simplified model, it would be like the first generation starts out with 1 species, and the fourth generation has 73 species. Evolution scientists have to account for that it. So they have species evolving at different rates over different time periods, violating the constant law all over. Some scientists even ascribe to the “Cambrian Explosion” theory, which says during the Cambrian era, evolution happened at a much expanded rate. True, there are more fossils are the “Cambrian level” of the crust, but they use this to claim that the evolution constant reset itself, violating their own law even more.

And then there were 4.

Fruit Flies

 


Evolution scientists have claimed to discover a fruit fly that has evolved. This fruit fly has two pairs of wings, unlike the typical fruit fly, which only has one. Evolutionists claim that evolution has advanced the species by giving it an extra pair of wings.

First of all, this discovery of fruit flies with two pairs of wings has only happened in laboratories, where scientists breed together flies. Fruit flies with two pairs of wings have never been found in nature. This proves creation by an intelligent creator over because these scientists are intelligibly creating this modification by breeding the flies together. Second, the second pair of wings on these fruit flies do not have any muscles in them. Therefore, the fly cannot use them. These wings are now useless to fly, only weighing it down, preventing it from flying straight. This violates another law of evolution. According to the theory of evolution, evolution must help the species advance. The second pair of wings does not help the fruit fly advance. Instead, it hinders the fruit fly. It would have been better if the fruit fly still only had one pair of wings.

And then there were 3.

Hox Gene

The homeotic gene, or hox gene, is a gene in some organisms that allow mutations to occur at the embryo stage. Evolution scientists point to this gene as responsible for causing the mutations that created all the species through evolution. They claim that only some of the species will have this gene. Those that do are the ones that go on to live, via survival of the fittest, to produce the new species.

In reality, further research of this gene shows everyone from every species has this gene. Furthermore, this gene activates in what humans call the third trimester, which is too late to cause any real mutations.

And then there were 2.

The Galapagos Islands Finches

 


As noted above, one of Charles Darwin’s favorite animals to observe on the Galapagos Islands was the finches. Darwin observed 12 different types of finches while on the islands. Charles noted that he could not find all 12 finches on a single island. Different finches were on different islands. He took all the finches that were on the same island, looked at their diet, look at their beaks, and match all those observations together. Darwin noted that each island had its own vegetation. Each finch ate from the same vegetation, and each finch had a beak that was able to eat of that vegetation. For example, the islands that had nuts had finches with beaks made to break open nut shells. Charles concluded that all finches came from a single finch ancestor, and as these finches migrated to different islands, their beaks evolved through natural selection and mutation in order to adjust to their new diet.

 

Now recall everything I said earlier about The Origin of Species. Remember that Charles Darwin only knew about phenotypes, which are outward appearances, and not genotypes, which are things like DNA, chromosomes and genes. Darwin made these observations and conclusions by merely looking at the phenotypes. If Charles would have known about genotypes, he would have seen that all 12 types of finches share 98% to 99% of the same DNA. This means that these aren’t really different species of finches, but more like different breeds of finches. To call all these different finches different species would be like saying a greyhound and a doxen are two different species. The slight changes in the beaks is what we would call microevolution, which are slight modifications within a species (or sometimes a genus). This is very different from macroevolution, which are changes that develop brand new species or a brand new genus. But remember, Darwin doesn’t know the difference, so he simply calls it “evolution.” If Charles knew the difference, he may not have suggested that they came from a single finch ancestor, he definitely would not suggested that the finches came from a single bird ancestor.

And then there was 1.

Antibiotic Resistant Single-Cell Bacteria

If you’re paying attention to medical science, a crisis has arisen in the pharmaceutical field. Single-cell germs and bacteria are becoming more and more resistant to our pain killers and symptom relievers. They are becoming so resistant that it’s causing the drug companies to abandon their old medicine recipes and seek new ones because the old have little to no effect on these germs and bacteria. While this is making medical scientists unhappy, it’s making evolution scientists quite happy. They make it an icon of evolution. They claim these bacteria are evolving through natural selection. When they encounter they antibiotic, the weaker bacteria dies out, when the stronger bacteria lives and produces more antibiotic resistant bacteria.

My answer is no different from the one above. This bacteria is receiving slight modifications, but not enough to become a new species. It’s the same bacteria with the same DNA. Therefore, this is microevolution at best, but definitely not macroevolution.

And then there were none.

Conclusions about Evolution and its 8 Icons

In this section, we have looked at eight examples all evolutionists will hold as proof of evolution. We’ve heard from evolution scientists and creation scientists. We have applied logic and reasoning that would make the Greek philosophers proud. I have come to conclusions, and I hope you have come to the same. Icons 1 to 6 simply are not true. Icons 7 and 8 prove microevolution, which would prove slight modifications can happen within a species (or a genus), but have not proved macroevolution, which means a species cannot change enough to become another species (or a genus).

 


Now I have a guess you’re about skip down to the comments section to angrily accuse me of being “anti-science.” Hold on; I beg you to listen a little bit longer. I am not anti-science. I know that all facts of physics are true. I know that if you drop a watermelon and a cherry from a tower at the same time, they will both hit the ground at the same time. I know that all facts about chemistry are true. I know that the salt water in the ocean is comprised of a molecule that is a 1 to 1 ratio of sodium and chlorine in an ionic bond and a molecule with a 2 to 1 ratio of hydrogen and oxygen in a covalent bond. There are other areas of biology I hold to be true. I know plants produce their own food through photosynthesis. And I do believe microevolution to be true. I know if you want to get pink carnations, you breed red carnations and white carnations together. Any gardener knows that. I know that Noah did not load any labradoodles (a cross-breed of a labrador and a poodle) or goldendoodles (a cross-breed of a golden retriever and a poodle) in the Ark. I know they are recently invented breeds. I’m not stupid.

 


What people don’t get, and it frustrates me people don’t get it, is that science isn’t as objective as the modern era would like us to think. No scientists go in with a pure, clean, fresh slate. They all have presuppositions that come from their family, their friends, their philosophy and their religions. Evolution scientists come in with a naturalism philosophy, a philosophy that that believes that all that exists is in nature, and there is nothing supernatural. Nothing supernatural means there’s no angels, no demons and no God. What do we call the belief of no God? Atheism. There’s a strong tie between naturalism and atheism, and there’s a strong tie between atheism and evolution. When the Greek philosophers went atheist, it led them to set forth the first building blocks of evolution. When Charles Darwin went atheist, he developed evolution and made it famous. Still don’t believe me? There’s a summer camp out there called Camp Quest. Camp Quest is the atheist equivalent of summer Bible camp or summer church camp. Just like summer church camp, Camp Quest has activities like crafts, games and swimming. They even have a study time to learn. But if it’s not a Bible study, then what is it? You guessed it: evolution. Of all things to teach children, they teach evolution. I beg you, please see the correlation between atheism and evolution.

If you’re still not convince I am not anti-science, maybe this will convince you. I think that Christians have been too harsh on Charles Darwin. Darwin only wrote about microevolution, which most creation scientists will acknowledge as fact. He never wrote on macroevolution. He didn’t even ascribe to a single common ancestor late in life, and even then, he was cautious because he knew everything would have to line up just right by chance. In fact, Charles enjoyed listening to and wrestling with the teleological arguments. Furthermore, although atheist, Darwin never made his evolutionary observations and discovery a vendetta against God or Christians. Therefore, why should Christians have a vendetta against him? Besides, it’s just not showing the kindness and gentleness Jesus taught us to bear. Maybe if Christians were slow to judge Darwin, maybe in turn evolutionists would be slow to criticize Christians for believing differently.

6 Views of Creation

So far, we’ve looked at 8 icons of evolution, seen how they are weak or non-existant, and thus have concluded that evolution is somewhere between a weak theory and a bad theory. Since we took out the main, overall theory, there’s no need to discuss any subtheories or differences because they all hang on the main, overall theory. To use an analogy, we’ve cut off the branch, and killed all the leaves along wth it. Now it’s time to look at the creation side.of the argument. Although I bet there’s many more views, we’ll look at 6 main views of creation. I’ll explain each one of them and provide some of the proofs they give. We’ll look at strengths and weaknesses. Then, at the end, I’ll let you decided which one you like the best, but I will mention theology that all of them need to have.

Literal 6-Day Creation

Literal 6-Day Creation reads Genesis 1 and 2 in the most literal straightforward way.God created the world exactly the way Genesis 1 and 2 records it. Every time in the Hebrew Old Testament the Hebrew word yom, the Hebrew word for “day,” gets paired with a number, it always means a literal, 24-hour period. No one believes Jonah lived inside the belly of the great fish for 3 millennia, No one believes Esther and her maids fasted for 3 centuries. In each case, it says 3 days, and they meant 72 hours. The Old Testament Israelites/Jews would have understood the creation to take 6 days with a 7th day of rest. After all, this is why they established the work week to be 6 days long and the Sabbath to be the 7th day of rest. Both the New Testament Jews and the New Testament Christians understood the Creation story in Genesis 1 and 2 to literally happen that way. Jesus quoted Genesis 1:26, the part where God literally creates man on the 6th 24-hour day of creation. Paul, too, refers to Adam and Eve as really real people (cf. Romans 5:9-12, 1 Corinthians 11:8,9, 15:21,22,45-47, 2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:13,14, and many more!). The Early Church Fathers believed the creation story to be true. The Christians during the Reformation took the Creation literally. Historically speaking, literal 6-Day Creation has been the dominant view for most of history. To believe differently, a person has to go against centuries of historical testimony.

To side with Literal 6-Day Creation, on the other hand, takes a lot of guts. Literal 6-Day Creation opposes secular science the most. To take Genesis 1 and 2 literally, the earth can only exist for 4,000 to 6,000 years. Science puts the Earth at about 4.5 billion years old. Furthermore, secular science says the sun is 4.6 billion years old, making the sun older than the earth. A literal reading of Genesis 1 records the earth as older than the sun by a matter of 3 days. On a similar note, secular science states all light must have a source. How can light exist on Day 1 when the sun or stars don’t exist until Day 4? The Hebrew word yom, while translated “day,” does not always mean a 24-hour period. The Day of the Lord, yom YHWH, does not mean a single, 24-hour day, but rather a time when the Lord reigns. So yom does not have to be restricted to 24 hours. This is why creation literalists need to mention that the number needs to go with the word yom to make it a literal 24-hour period. But it’s not that straightforward either. If a person read Genesis 1 and 2 in the original Hebrew, he or she will notice days 2 to 6 do read with ordinal numbers (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th). Day 1 does not fit this pattern. In Genesis 1:5, yom ehad most literally translate into “one day.” The creation literalists will argue it can be translated to “first day” as well, or “one day” could be considered interchangeable with “first day,” but that’s not always the case. Opponents of the literal creation will say “one day” could mean “some day,” or “a day” or “a certain day,” like the sentence, “One day, Christian learned about evolution in science class.” This sentence does not mean Christian spent 24 hours straight listening to his science teacher lecture about evolution. In the same way, Genesis 1:5 should not be taken that way. On the opposite end, Genesis 2:2 rightfully reads “the seventh day,” but it does not have the typical closing phrase of all the other days: “and there was morning and there was evening.” Does this mean day 7 lasted more than 24 hours? That’s not the only problem with Genesis 2. Genesis 2:4-7 causes a whole lot of problems for the literalist. In Genesis 2:4-7, God creates man before plants and animals, while in Genesis 1, plants and animals come before man. If Genesis 2:4-7 is taken literally, it would seem to contradict a literal reading of Genesis 1.

Day-Age Theory

Day-Age Theory begins by helpfully reminding the reader that Genesis 1 comes for God’s perspective. Then it goes to 2 Peter 3:8, which reads, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” According to Day-Age Theory, God sees a millennium as a day. Together, when God says in Genesis 1 it took him a day to create, it really took a millennium.  Still, this would only make the earth 6,000 to 10,000 years old, still millennia away from what science says. So Day-Age Theory says that a day is not a literal 24 hours, but rather just a time period, which could be a million or a billion years. Day-Age Theory insists that day does not have to mean 24 hours. They will use the “Day of the Lord” example, saying that the Day of the Lord will last for millions or billions of years. This theory makes so compromise to science, like the age of the sun and the earth, as well as the microevolution, but does not compromise enough to accept macroevolution.

Day-Age Theory correctly reminds everyone that Genesis 1 comes from God’s point of view, but the theory incorrectly views 2 Peter 3:8. It takes it way out of context. 2 Peter 3:8 serves a reminder that God does fulfill his promises, even though it may not be on our time table (cf. 2 Peter 3:9). The verse has no connection to the creation accounts, and thus has nothing to do with creation. While the theory claims to allow microevolution and not microevolution, it really doesn’t allow any kind of evolution. The theory of evolution states (or at least claims) that for true evolution to happen, evolution cannot have any time period borders. Even with Day-Age Theory having “days” that are thousands, millions or billions of years, they are still time periods with borders, and that would not suit any kind of evolution. Day-Age Theory may have good reasoning behind it, but it still lacks any kind of scientific backing, even if it makes compromises in order to side with science.

Gap Theory

Remember when I told Christian’s testimony, I put God creating the heavens and the earth in the beginning on a separate line than God creating light on the first day? The Gap Theory is that reason. Gap Theory keeps the two as two different, separate events. According to Gap Theory, billions of years ago, God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1). Sometime later, the devil and his demons rebelled, and they were cast down on the earth. This ruined and corrupted the earth, making it formless and empty (Gen 1:2). So God spent 6 days, 24 hours long, recreating and renewing the earth (Gen 1:3-31). Just like Day-Age Theory, it compromises with science on the age of earth, sun, moon and stars, but does not compromise with evolution.

Gap Theory shares a lot of criticisms with Day-Age Theory. If it wants to compromise with science, it does not compromise enough. Evolution will claim that the ancestors of our modern-day animals date back to over a million years ago. Gap Theory would only allow today’s animal’s ancestors to date back to 4,000 to 10,000 years ago. This would really create a problem observing fossils. Again, Gap Theory will not allow evolution because of the time borders. Some will say that Gap Theory’s Biblical Hermeneutics skills need work. A formless and empty earth does not mean the earth is ruined or corrupt. Genesis 3 shows that a fallen world is ruined a corrupt, not Genesis 1:2. The earth being formless and empty just means the earth is incomplete. Gap Theory might have good reasoning behind it, but it still lacks any scientific backing. For this reason, Gap Theory really was just a fad. It was commonly held during the 1970s and 1980s, but it is rarely defended today.

Intermittent Theory

Intermittent is almost a combination between Day-Age Theory and Gap Theory. Intermittent Theory states that God created everything in 6 24-hour periods, yet it also says that these days are not consecutive days, but rather there’s millions to billions of years between them. During these million to billion years, they claim, evolution happened. Once again, most people who hold onto Intermittent Theory believe only microevolution happened; few will believe macroevolution happen. Intermittent Theory will also help account for science’s old age of the sun and earth.

Since Intermittent Theory is a cross between Day-Age Theory and Gap Theory, it encounters a lot of the same problems. Once again, despite allowing millions and billions of years for evolution and old age of the sun and earth, it still would create time borders, which evolution cannot be limited by. Once again, Intermittent Theory makes use good logic or reasoning to compromise with science, but it really has no science behind it.

Literary Framework Analogy

The Literary Framework Analogy first seeks to understand the Biblical background of the Creation story. So prior to looking at the Literary Framework, we have to look at the background of Genesis. First, we have to know who the author is. For simplicity’s sake, we’re going ignore the J.E.D.P. theory (that’s another discussion for another time), and we’ll stick with the traditional answer of Moses. Second, we have to know who the audience is. The audience of Genesis is the Israelites. Now which generation of Israelites depends on how one believes the Torah or Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible) was compiled. If one believes that the Torah was written in progression, that is, they were written as they happened, the audience of Genesis is the older generation of Israelites that came out of Egypt. If one believes the Pentateuch was written together, it would be the younger generation of Israelites, who are the children of the Israelites who came out of Egypt, which means they have no recollection of the slavery or the plagues. Although the message would be more important for the latter, it really doesn’t matter. Third, we have to know where they are. The Israelites are encamped in the Sinai Desert, between Egypt and Canaan, the Promised Land. Fourth, we have to consider what’s happening. God has brought his chosen people out of Egypt. He has led them to Mount Sinai to establish a covenant them. Now God is preparing His people for the Promised Land.

Why is this all important? The best explanation comes from a Bible verse. Everyone knows Joshua 24:15b, which reads, “But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord,” but few know the context. The context can be found in Joshua 24:14-15a. It reads, “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell.” This passage so well describes the context. Stuck between two lands, the Israelites have two options of religions to worship. They can worship the Egyptian polytheism, which they came out of, or they can worship the Canaanite polytheism, which they are going into. But Joshua reminds them of a third option. They can worship and serve the one and only true God, Yahweh. What makes Yahweh makes one and only is that he’s unique. God wants His people to know that he’s unique and nothing like the other gods in the other lands. Part of the reason we have in Genesis in the Scriptures to show all of God’s people that God is nothing like any foreign god.

So how is God different than other gods? Let’s look at one of the creation myths. Let’s look at the Egyptian creation myth. According to Egyptian creation myth, before the dawn of time, there was a dark, watery chaos known as Nu. From Nu arose Atum, who created himself out of his own intellect and willpower. Atum is an all-seeing and all-knowing god with an all-seeing eye. First thing Atum creates is a hill because he has no place to stand in the water. Atum looks around and is lonely because he sees no one around. He mates with his own shadow to produce a son and a daughter. His son he spits out, names him Shu, and puts him in charge of the air. His daughter he vomits out, names her Tefnut, and makes her goddess of mist and moisture. Atum then commands Shu and Tefnet to make that dark, watery chaos into order and stability by creating principles and laws. These principles and laws Shu and Tefnet called Maat. Using Maat, they separate the chaos into light and darkness, and they give each one a place and time. Shu and Tefnet mate together and produce Geb, the Earth, and Nut, the sky. When they are born, they are two lovers, intertwined into each other’s arms. So Shu had to push Nut up into the heavens. Geb and Nut longed to be together, but they could not in the name of Maat, so they would give gifts to each other. Nut sends rain to Geb, and Geb makes plants out of Nut’s rain. Every day, Nut gives birth to the sun at sunrise and gives it to Geb, where it dies at sunset. But Nu is still not fully conquered and Shu and Tefnut get lost in it. Atum sends his all-seeing eye out to find. Eventually, the all-seeing eye finds them and brings them back to Atum. Atum is so happy he cries tears of joy. Those tears of joy become the first human beings. The humans are commanded to uphold Maat, tend to Geb, and worship the gods. In exchange, the gods would protect and bless the creation, especially the humans.

 


Believe it or not, this is one of the “nicer” creation myths. Check out the Babylonian Creation Myth, known as the Enuma Elish. Once again, the story begins with a watery chaos. There’s a chief god, Apsu (or Abzu), who is the god of fresh water, and Tiamet, who is the goddess of salt water. Once again, the two of them are lonely, so they mate in order to make more gods and goddesses. Before they know it, Tiamet is pregnant with eight gods. The gods inside Tiamet are very noisy, so noisy that it annoys Apsu and Tiamet. Apsu is so annoyed that he wants to abort the gods, but Tiamet thinks that’s going too far. So the two of them call forth Mummu to serve as a mediator and judge. Mummu ends up agreeing and siding with Apsu. Tiamet, still not wanting for her babies to die, finds the strongest god within her, Ea, and devises a plan to take out Apsu and make Ea the chief god in his place. Together, using magic, they place Apsu in a coma, and they kill Apsu in his coma. To reward Ea, Tiamet releases Ea from her body, along with his sister and wife Damkina. Ea and Damkina mate together and bring forth the god Marduk. They make him god of the wind and give him the winds to play with. Instead of using the winds for good, however, Marduk uses the winds to cause trouble, with tornados and dust storms. This disrupts Tiamet and the gods within her, so much they cannot sleep, which makes the gods cranky. The gods inside Tiamet guilt Tiamet into believing this is her fault, but then they quickly turn the blame to Ea for creating Marduk. They convince Tiamet that the only right thing to do is avenge Apsu by putting to death Ea and putting another god as chief god. Again, Tiamet finds the next strongest god, Kingu, and they conspire a plan. Together, they create 11 monsters who kill Ea. Kingu now becomes the chief god. Kingu and Tiamet rule as tyrants, in fear that another god or goddess will step out of line and cause more disruption and trouble. Kingu and Tiamet rule so fiercly, the other gods and goddesses constantly fear for their lives. Marduk, naturally wants to avenge his fallen father, calls some of the other gods and goddesses to his side to wage war against Kingu and Tiamet. Kingu and Tiamet align gods and goddesses with them as well, and a divine war breaks out. Marduk ends up as the victor. In the end of the war, Marduk and Tiamet fight one-on-one. Marduk completely destroys her. He takes her body, rips it in half, places one half above him and makes it heaven, and he places the other half below him and makes it earth. Using the two halves, Marduk makes the sun, moon and stars in the heavens and the plants on the earth. After fighting Tiamet, Marduk fights Kingu one-on-one. Just like with Tiamet, Marduk defeats and destroys Kingu. The fight is so bloody that fingers and toes fall off of Kingu. These fingers and toes become humans. Like a pregnant teenage girl (sorry if this is too harsh, but it’s the best comparison), Marduk has unplanned human life, and he doesn’t know what to do with it.  So Marduk decides to enslave humans as servants of the gods, to do the gods’ bidding. If they do not comply, they will receive curses. Not a pretty picture.

 


You’ve probably noticed some similarities and some differences in both stories, but what striking is the difference of themes between the polytheistic myths and the Creation story. In the myths, the creation is mass chaos. The god(s) is(are) constantly struggling against the chaos. The gods are fighting one another. Humans are accidently born, and the gods don’t know what to do with them, so they enslave them and treat them poorly. The true God, Yahweh, wants his people to know He is nothing like the gods the Israelites hear about in the foreign nations’ stories. The Lord is sovereignly in control. His creation had a plan and a purpose, with a future in mind. At the creation, there was peace and order from the start, due to his sovereign hand being in control. The creation submits to the creator, and yet love abounds between the Creation and the creation.

Therefore, the literary framework analogy states that Genesis 1 is God taking the creation myths of the ancient Middle Eastern peoples and redeeming it in a way to show who God really is. Just like the other creation myths, this creation story also begins with formless and empty watery mass known as earth. Instead of struggling to subdue it, God spends 3 days forming the formless. Next, God spends 3 days, days 4 to 6, filling the empty. Furthermore, the forming days parallel the filling days. Day 1 and Day 4 parallel each other because Day 1 begins with, “Let there be light…” and Day 4 begins with “Let there be lights…” Day 2 creates the sky by separating water, and Day 5 fills the sky with birds and the waters with fish, therefore a parallel happens. Day 3 forms land, and Day 6 fills the land with animals, thus a parallel exists there, too. Finally, by Day 7, the formless is formed, the empty is filled, so God can rest. In this way, God has created a Creation story, similar to the ones of the surrounding nations, which is easy to remember and teaches the Israelites about the true, loving God.

 
Beginning: Formless and empty
 
Formless
Given
Form
Day 1: Separate day from night. “Let there be light.”
Day 4: Fill day & night with sun, moon & stars. “Let there be lights...”
Empty
Being
Filled
Day 2: Separate water from water to form sky
Day 5: Fill sky with birds and seas with fish
Day 3: Separate water to form land
Day 6: Fill the land with animals
 
Day 7: Form, filled, complete. Rest.
 

 
Something to appreciate about the Literary Framework Analogy is its use and understanding of Biblical background. It knows the Creation story was not written in timeless, spaceless bubble, but rather was written in at a time in real history, at a place in real geography, and in a real culture. It knows this story needs to be observed in those contexts. It even goes as far as seeking to understand the ancient writings in order to get a better understanding of the context. Something else that someone might appreciate is that it requires no compromises with science. In fact, science can be 100% right, which could even include Big Bang Theory being right and evolution being right. If the purpose of the creation story is to teach that God was in control of his creation and that he loved his creation, then the purpose is not to teach on how the world came to be about, and science can give that answer. Thus, it’s OK to believe in a sun billions of years old and an earth millions of years old. It’s OK to believe in humans coming from a common ancestor of apes, which came from a common ancestor of lizards, which came from a common ancestor of fish. Why? Because how the earth and the species came to be is not the point of Genesis 1! The point is that God created it, He was in control, and he loved it.

On the flip side, the biggest criticism of Literary Framework Analogy can be summed up in a sentence uttered by Pontius Pilate in John 18:38: What is truth? Those supporters of Literary Framework analogy will say that the true being conveyed in Genesis 1 is that God was in charge, God was in control and God loves. But when it comes to the truth on how the world came to be, evolutionary science has that truth. If evolutionary science has the truth for the earth’s origins, and it’s different than what’s written in Genesis 1, does that mean Genesis 1 is a lie because that’s not how the earth came to be? If Genesis 1 is a lie, and Christians believe the Bible, including Genesis 1, is the Word of God, does that mean God lied? But doesn’t God always speak the truth? Literary Framework supporters will come back and say, “Isn’t God putting a full grown garden with full grown, fruit-producing trees lying because the garden is only a few days old? If God made a tree to look like it’s been around for years, but it’s only been around for a few days, isn’t that a lie?” Opponents come back and say that it’s necessary and would foolish not to. When God created man and woman, he could put an infant boy and an infant girl in the Garden. They needed to be a full grown humans to survive. Supporters of the Literary Framework says this further proves their point. It goes back and forth. As stated already, it comes down to how someone defines “truth.”

Theistic Evolution

Theistic evolution is exactly what the name implies. It is pretty much evolution to its fullest. The sun, moon, stars and earth are billions of years old. Life started as a single cell bacteria and evolved over millions of years into the species that exist today. The only difference, and the big difference, is that God is the originator. God started off evolution and let it go from there. How much God intervenes throughout the process depends on which theistic evolutionistic is asked. They range from no interaction whatsoever to God specially making man. As for Genesis 1, it’s not historically or scientifically accurate. It might be a myth, a legend, a fable, a parable, a story or an allegory, but it’s definitely not history, and it’s definitely not science.

Theistic evolution’s greatest strength is where all the other views failed into being weaknesses. There is no contradiction with evolution whatsoever. The galaxy can be billions of years old, life can be millions of years old, and there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it’s very right because it 100% agrees with science. While theistic evolution fully backs the science textbook, it sacrifices the Bible in order to do so. If Genesis 1 isn’t historically credible, then it’s easy to say Genesis chapters 1 to 11 isn’t historically credible either. And if Genesis 1-11 isn’t historically accurate, it’s possible to question the historical accuracy of the whole book of Genesis. Someone who believes that one weak spot in the Bible weakens the whole message of the Bible will greatly be offended by theistic evolution. Theistic evolution also has logical problems. Theistic evolution is sometimes called the “God of the gaps” theory. Theistic evolutionists have a habit of explaining everything with science, until they can explain no more, then the rest they attribute to God. What happens when science advances and finds out the answer? All of a sudden God isn’t there anymore? It weakens the power of God.

 

5 Icons of Creation

We just looked at 6 View of Creation. Looking at the 6 major views, we can see similarities among the first 5. The 6th one, theistic evolution, leaves us hanging because the similarities in the first 5 are hard to find in the 6th view. I propose we call the 5 similarities the “5 Icons of Creation.” Just like all evolutionists believe in the Icons of Evolution, the Icons of Creation are beliefs all Christians need to believe from the Genesis 1 narrative to really be true Christians. Each icon had importance to the original audience in the ancient times, and each icon also significance for the modern-day reader in the modern era. This section will discuss these 5 Icons of Creation and their important in a progress manner. Then, in the conclusion, we will line up the 6 Views of Creation to the 5 Icons of Creation to determine if each View of Creation is legitimate.

God (Yahweh) created

Genesis 1 clearly establishes the Lord God, Yahweh, the Great I AM, as the creator. For the ancient audience, this meant none of the other gods of the other nations could take credit. Atem of the Egyptians cannot take credit. Marduk of the Babylonians did not create. Baal of the Canannites did not have any role. Chemosh of the Philestines is absent from creating. It’s the one and only Yahweh. For the modern-day creator in a growing atheistic world, this means that a God, a Divine and Supernatural Being, is the creator. Chance cannot be credited for bringing about the universe. Random events did not bring about life. This earth and the life on it had an intelligent designer, and Christian call him God. (Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 124:8, Isaiah 66:2, Acts 17:24, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2, Revelation 4:11)

God created everything out of nothing

As we saw in the 2 of the creation myths, the earth and its inhabitants came from the gods’ body parts (fingers, toes, teeth, etc.) or the gods’ excrements (vomit, spit, tears, sweat, blood, snot, etc.). Later on, the atheistic Greek philosophers rejected this, stating that matter, the building blocks of the universe, was eternally present and available. The Bible, especially Genesis 1, rejects both sides. The Bible makes it clear the only one who is eternal is God Himself. Everything else finds it origin from God. God did not give birth to anything, nor did he use his own self to spawn a creation, but rather he created, by his voice and by handcrafting it. For the modern-day, this once again rejects the idea that a Big Bang came from nowhere and caused a chain reaction of random events to create everything seen today. Every reaction must have a source action, and that source action Christians call God. (John 1:1-4)

God willingly created everything out of nothing

As stated earlier, a lot of the ancient creation myths have humans coming about unplanned. Just like a pregnant teenage couple, they have no idea what to do with this new life. Pretty much, life on the earth is like a mistake. Modern-day evolution doesn’t really help this cause either. When random chance is involved, anything can go. There’s no plan, and things can exist by mistake. Not so in Genesis 1. When Genesis 1 shows God actively involved, the reader can tell God is willingly creating everything. Nothing he created is unplanned, nor is it a mistake. If it’s there, God wanted it to be there. What a relief it is for the Bible believer! If the reader exists, then God wanted him/her to exist! (1 Corinthians 8:6)

God willingly and lovingly created everything out of nothing

There’s not much love going around in the creation myths. When gods bring forth unwanted humans, the humans end up being enslaved by the gods, forced to worship them or suffer the consequences. Evolution may not be concerned with love, but no wonder a society that believes in evolution shows little concern in taking care of the environment and places little value in human life (suicide, homicide, abortion, etc.)! From start to end, the creation narrative in Genesis 1-2 displays a God who loves his handiwork. God’s close attention to detail alone proves. If God takes the time to know how many hairs on a human head and what a human thinks before the human thinks it, don’t you think God loves that human? Looking at the creation story, anyone can see love. It’s harder to see love in evolution or warring gods. (Psalm 139:1-4,13, Matthew 10:30)

God willingly and lovingly created everything out of nothing with a plan and a purpose

When the ancient gods of the ancient myths find out they have human life, they must quickly devise a plan on the spot, and it’s never a pretty one. With evolution having life randomly coming about, it’s hard to give life a deep meaning. Sure, it may give some liberty to choose a purpose as seen fit, but the purpose has no deeper connection to everyone and everything around it, and when that human life is up, the purpose dies with the human. Genesis 1 preaches quite the opposite. If God willingly creates something, God has in mind a role for the creation in part of the larger creation. When God lovingly creates something, he wants it to share in His divine will and plan. When God brings something to existence, it doesn’t go to waste. It will bring about fulfillment to the creation, fulfillment to itself, and glory to God. (Jeremiah 29:11, 1 Timothy 4:4)

Conclusion

We’ve been on a long, tough and crazy ride. We’ve explored what the testimony of the “typical” Christian might look like, and how he (or she) can get caught up between the war between creation and evolution. We’ve looked at history’s testimony, how it has had its own long, tough and crazy ride, and the war between creation and evolution has become rougher over the years. We’ve observed 8 Icons of Evolution, and we saw how 6 are outright false and the other 2 are microevolution, not macroevolution. We’ve examined 6 Views of Creation, and we detected each had strengths and weaknesses. Then we noticed similarities, and we made them 5 Icons of Creation, beliefs that all Christians need to believe to be true believers.

Let’s take at the last two, the 6 Views of Creation and the 5 Icons of Creation, one more time. Let’s put them together to see if the former accepts the latter, and thus the latter validates the former. Take one of the Views of Creation and the Icons of Creation, put them in this question, and then answer the question: “Does [View of Creation] believe that [Icon of Creation]?” Do it for all combinations of all views and all icons. What did you get? How did you answer? For the first 5 views (Literal 6 Days, Day-Age Theory, Gap Theory, Intermittent Theory, Literary Framework Analogy), the answer can clearly be “Yes!” Therefore, those 5 views can be acceptable views on how God created the world (although, when it comes down to it, God only created the world one way, but with no human there to witness the whole thing, we’ll never know, so your guess on the beginning is as solid as your guess on the end times). The 6th view, theistic evolution, however, is not so smooth. When it comes to theistic evolution and the Icons of Creation, some people would answer “yes,” while other people would answer “no.” So the best answer is “possibly.” I think what makes theistic evolution so indecisive is due to being a compromise between creation and evolution. The creation side of theistic evolution answers “yes” to all the questions, but the evolution side answers “no” to all the questions, so the answer becomes “possibly.” So it comes down to everyone’s individual conviction to determine whether or not theistic evolution is a legitimate view of creation. For me, I have 2 issues with theistic evolution. First, I have taken the time to prove the 8 Icons of Evolution are mostly false, and thus discredited evolution. Therefore, why would I support a view that still clings to it? Second, I believe I have proven a strong correlation between evolution and atheism (with maybe naturalism as an in-between stop). With such a strong correlation, the term “theistic evolution” is pretty much an oxymoron.

 


That leads us full circle right back to our introduction, right back to Arthur Dent in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. On one of his adventures, Arthur meets Slartibartfast, one of the engineers who built the earth. Arthur cannot wrap his mind around the fact that he’s meeting an engineer of the earth, possibly because he’s been taught there was no creator, designer or engineer. Slartibartfast asks Arthur, “Have you ever been to the fjords of Norway?” Arthur quickly says no. “That’s why,” Slartibartfast replies,” for if you would have, you would have seen I signed my signature in one of the glaciers” (italics is mine for emphasis). Going from a sci-fi book to a God-breathed book, Psalm 19:1 reads, “The Heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” The Lord has signed His handiwork, and we cannot deny that. The big theological term is “natural revelation.” Looking at the beauty of the earth, no one will say, “Man, am I a sinner desperately in need of a savior to die for my sins,” for that’s special revelation. But looking at the beauty of the earth, men and women should say, “Wow, this earth is so beautiful, there has to be a creator, and there has to be a God.” That is natural revelation. God has created life and the universe and has revealed himself in it. We cannot allow any religion, philosophy or science to deny God that credit. No matter what view you choose to hold of Creation, remember to give God credit and worship God as the Creator.

An Evaluation of Children's Church Songs

I have an atypical daughter. Despite all the baby books stating that infants sleep 10-12 hours during the night, along with 2 hour-long naps...