Science and the Bible- Does Jesus Devastate An Old Earth?

Science and faith issues are no doubt a hot topic of discussion when it comes to defending the truth of Christianity. Many Christians hold many different views about the timing and mechanism of God's creative acts. Some views hold numerous details in common while others may hold only many details in common. It is the few differences here and there that cause much heat in this internal debate and cause unbelievers (and some Christians) to question the truth of the historic Christian faith as a whole. Today, I want to look at one of the more common distinctives between Christians who believe that the universe is young (6,000-10,000 years old) and those Christians who believe that the universe is ancient (~13.7 billion years old).

But before I get to the specific challenge, I need to set a foundation. First, I am an old earth creationist (OEC), so I will defend the latter of the two views above; however, I will not appeal to God's actions (creation) today; rather I will limit my appeals to Scripture alone. Second, there are numerous areas of agreement among young and old earth creationists just within the doctrine of creation (not to mention the rest of the Christian worldview), and I feel that the differences, because of their ability to undermine the truth of the Christian worldview, tend to get more of the focus than the common ground. I have a list of more than forty areas of agreement in my article "What Do Young Earth and Old Earth Christians Agree Upon Regarding Origins?" to help Christians remember these area of unity and be more gracious in our discussions with each other. The primary two areas of agreement that are important for today's topic are that both young- and old- earth creationists affirm biblical inerrancy and that Adam and Eve were historically the first humans. With those in place, here we go!

"Humility demands that Christians hold interpretations of controversial passages somewhat tentatively, expressing a willingness to learn more. No matter how much study anyone devotes to an issue...room still exists to improve understanding."

"Literal interpretation, properly understood, is a method of interpretation that gives full weight to all aspects of a passage's context, including the immediate textual context, the literary genre of the passage, the way words were used in the culture, the historical setting and purpose of the text, and the broader theological context."

"No single passage reveals the entire masterpiece. At best, each text uncovers an element or two. By fitting these pieces together and discovering their nuances, one can begin to see and make sense of the overall picture...Assuming a big picture from just one or two parts can lead to a distorted whole."

"To interpret the Bible literally is not enough, one must also interpret it with internal (as well as external) consistency."

"People who seem most concerned with defending biblical inerrancy may be the most resistant to any information derived outside the Bible that might help illuminate what the Bible means. Logically, taking Scripture seriously means being passionately concerned about interpreting it correctly and thus welcoming any evidence that exposes erroneous understandings of Scripture. Unfortunately, many zealous Bible believers confuse their favored interpretations of the Bible with the Word of God itself."

"The Bible teaches a dual, consistent revelation. Just as readers rightfully expect valid interpretation of Isaiah to be consistent with that of Mark, so too they can expect accurate interpretation of the facts of nature to be consistent with the message of Genesis and the rest of Scripture."

"Since God created the cosmos, there can be no contradiction between what He has made and what He has spoken through the inspired writers of Scripture. The testimony of both will always agree, and we need never back away from facts that may appear daunting to our faith. We need only study and investigate further, checking for accuracy--the accuracy of scientific interpretations and the accuracy of biblical interpretations."

"Constructive integration advocates freely acknowledge that conflicts can and do arise between theology and science. After all, theology is not the same as the words of the Bible. It is the human effort to interpret the Bible's words. Neither is science equivalent to the record of nature. It is the human attempt to interpret nature, past and present. Because human knowledge must always be incomplete and to some degree biased, both theologians and scientists sometimes arrive at incorrect conclusions about Scripture and nature, despite God's rendering these records perfectly reliable and trustworthy."

"When science appears to conflict with theology, we have no reason to reject either the facts of nature or the Bible's words. Rather, we have reason to reexamine our interpretations, because the facts of nature and Scripture will always agree."

"In no way does God's revelation via the universe detract from the importance of His written revelation. Nor does this belief in the trustworthiness of nature's message imply that God never intervenes in the natural realm by performing miracles. It does mean that when He performs such miracles God does not remove, hide, or distort physical evidence for them."

"We want to have our ideas tested. We are persuaded that our positions today are going to need adjustment as we gain more understanding...we need some diversity; we need open dialog. What I'm concerned about is that we have so much hostility in this dialog and that needs to be replaced with a more humble spirit where we say, 'Chances are we are both wrong in part, at least, and we may discover that we need to develop something new that none of us have thought of.' How are we going to discover that if we don't have open dialog without the threat of hostility?- where we say, 'we're making progress together. We're allies; we're not enemies. We're allies working together toward the common goal'."

"Truth holds no threat for the Christian. Truth in the scientific arena, which can be directly or indirectly tested, will always be consistent with truth in the spiritual arena. And, despite protestations from all sides, truth in nature must be connected with something, or Someone, beyond the natural realm—the something or Someone responsible for nature’s existence and characteristics."

"Perhaps the most tragic aspect of denying nature's scientifically established characteristics is that such a denial forces the rejection of timely, compelling evidence for the God of the Bible and for the accuracy and authority of His Word."

These quotes can all be found in Dr. Ross' books "Navigating Genesis" and "A Matter of Days" and various other resources available at Reasons to Believe.

More quotes from Dr. Ross may be found here:
10 Quotes from Dr. Hugh Ross on Why The Universe Is The Way It Is

Man's Fallible Ideas vs. God's Infallible Word

Introduction

Those who have read this blog for quite some time know that I spend a lot of time discussing specifics of the Christian worldview, not just a "mere Christianity." Going into the details of a worldview allows people to test worldviews against reality to see which one accurately describes the world in which we live. As discussed in other posts (here and here), it is important to discuss and investigate the details of a worldview to ensure that when we defend the truth of the Christian worldview, we are not defending incorrect doctrines that can easily be shown to go against reality (thus falsifying the Christian worldview in the skeptic's mind).

These internal debates are often heated among Christians. All sides of a debate bring their biblical, natural, philosophical, and historical evidences for their view and against the others. The amount of evidence to wade through can be daunting, and it frustrates many. I have noticed that frustration, however, is not just from the amount of evidence to examine, but the weight of evidence for one side or the other. Often many find themselves on the lighter end of evidence. Their evidence has been shown to be misinterpreted by them, incomplete in the details, compatible with the other views, falsified by new research, or even not applicable to the discussion at hand. This is extremely frustrating when the majority of the evidence for one side fails by one these. Unfortunately, I have heard the people with the undermined evidence make an appeal that often has more rhetorical power than intellectual honesty: "Stop reinterpreting the Bible, and stop compromising the Gospel." This is often followed with the question, "why would you want to believe the ideas of fallible man and not the truth of an infallible God," in order to ensure that the reader/hearer understands that if they reject this view (despite the compromised evidence) they are committing a most heinous sin, tantamount to apostasy and heresy.

"A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible" by Robert Stein

Introduction

"A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible" (Paperback, Kindle, GoodReads) by Robert Stein comes to this reviewer as a recommendation by a friend and member of his Sunday School class. There was no expectation of a review, but the opportunity could not be passed considering the focus of the book: hermeneutics. Theology is an important aspect of the apologist's endeavor. The apologist defends what is true- what scripture teaches about the world. However, the apologist needs to make sure that they understand what scripture actually does teach about reality; otherwise, they may be wasting time defending something that is false. When something false is believed and defended, it can be easy to defeat and made the object of ridicule among skeptics. Correctly understanding what scripture teaches about reality requires that the reader understand how to interpret what is written in scripture. Robert Stein offers a basic overview of proper ways to interpret scripture that will be vital to the apologist's efforts.

Part 1: The General Rules of Interpretation

Chapter 1: Who Makes Up The Rules? An Introduction to Hermeneutics

In the first chapter, Stein sets the foundation for his overview. He explains that with any communication, there are three parts involved: the author, the message, and the reader. He explains the different views on where meaning is found. If meaning is determined by the reader, then any message (the biblical text, in our case) can mean anything- thus meaning nothing objectively. The text itself cannot convey meaning since mere symbols are inanimate objects incapable of intentionally communicating to the reader. Stein argues that only the author of the text determines what it means.

The Holy Spirit, Interpretation, And Evidence

As I have written in the past, engaging in debates on Christian theology is important for the apologist. In discussions of Christian doctrine and beliefs with fellow Christians, the correct interpretation of particular scriptures is vital. A few weeks ago I discussed the claim by people that I may be "twisting" scripture to mean what I believe is true. But today I want to spend a few minutes on a related accusation.

I have had many long and short interactions on proper interpretation. On a few-too-many occasions the person I have been engaging says that their interpretation was given to them by the Holy Spirit. The expected response from me is that I will concede my position (regardless of my evidence and reasoning for my interpretation) because "God has spoken."

Debates Within The Church

A little over a month ago I wrote about the importance of internal debates to the apologist. To sum it up in one sentence: Internal debates are necessary for the apologist to engage in, so that when they present a case for the truth of Christianity, they are not defending something false that could be used as a defeater for their conclusion of Christianity's truth.

As an apologist, I not only defend the truth of the Christian worldview, but I also defend specific views within the Christian worldview. In many of my interactions, it often comes out that I defend the truth of a view that is not very popular. Sometimes I take a stand against a doctrine that has been held traditionally but, I contend, is false. I receive much resistance and am forced to defend the doctrine scripturally, philosophically, and scientifically (not that I mind that at all). Many Christians are involved in these debates (whether apologists or not). I've written on several occasions about the danger of being emotionally committed to a doctrine that is shown to be false, but today I'd like to look at a more sincere and valid concern that people have when a traditional view is challenged.