Divine Origin and Sacred History: Tale Lights

Just as today, ancient man was fascinated by the heavens. This appeal is well-placed since its purpose from the beginning was to benefit the earth-bound observer. In the Creator’s accounting of the events He expresses that the host of lights inset against the deep blackness of space (as diamonds enhanced on velvet), were “for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years (Genesis 1:14).” Universal time measurement was ordained on Day 4.

While standard time measurement was obviously an expressed purpose of heaven’s luminaries, the book of Job bears out a deeper stellar appreciation related to the “signs” denoted in history’s opening record.

In Chapter 9, Job credits God with the placement and design of pictorial star groupings (vv.4-9). Later on in Chapter 38, God Himself references these “heavenly congregations” (vv.31-33).  God intimates that these groupings are more than just random clusters of plasma smattered across the heavens. Though tens-of-thousands of light years apart, they have been divinely manipulated with an assigned place and purpose in order to affect the terrestrial occupant.

The “ordinances” of verse 33 are interpreted literally as order or arrangement, rendering the following as a reasonable paraphrase: “Job, can you fathom the order and arrangement of the stars and their relevance to the observer?”

We are instructed in Scripture that the priority or role of Creation is to declare the magnificence of the Creator and direct the observer to Him.

Psalm 8 – “Oh Lord our Lord, how excellent is Thy name in all the earth! Who (not a question but an allusion to His prime seating and interest in His investment) hast set Thy glory above the heavens…When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy finger, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained; What is man, that Thou art mindful of Him…Oh Lord our Lord, how excellent is Thy name.”

Psalm 19 – “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork.”

Acts 17 – “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though He needed any thing, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;…That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel (grope) after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us…”

Acknowledgement of this profound direction offered in the heavens and relevance to the observer is found in the dialogue between Job and his friends. Zophar uses the observable yet incomprehensible expanse of the heavens to stress the infinitude of God. “Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty to perfection? It is as high as the heavens…what canst thou know (11:7-8)?” Eliphaz uses the height of heaven to illustrate God’s unobstructed perspective of all man’s activities; particularly those which he assumed Job was trying to hide. “Is not God in the height of the heaven? And behold the height of the stars, how high they are! And thou sayest, How doth God know (22:12-13)?”

Dr. Henry Morris believed that it is most “significant that this oldest book of the Bible contains more specific references to the constellations than any other book, suggesting that God-fearing men of that age were very much aware of the divine significance of these God-ordained star groups.”

When David wrote the 19^th Psalm, what was the declarative extent of the handiwork to which he referred? Was the appreciative “knowledge” (v.2) general and declaring of His glory or specific and directing to His person?

Concerning these heavenly declarations, Dr. Morris suggests the following in his book The Remarkable Record of Job (p. 45).

“In some way…these constellations must have symbolized to the ancient patriarchs God’s purposes in creation and His promises of a coming Redeemer. This primeval message has been corrupted satanically into fantasy messages of the astrologers, but, since we now have God’s written Word, it is no longer needed. To the early generations, however, it may have served as a memory device, perpetually calling to mind the primeval promises given to Adam, Enoch, and Noah…”

Genesis 15 relates an encounter between the Lord and a likely contemporary of Job, the man Abram. The result of the encounter was a declaration of a righteous credit to Abram’s spiritual account after believing something clarified by the Lord in the night sky.

“Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and He said unto him, So shall thy seed be (v.5).” In order to understand this passage, two words must be defined. The words “tell” and “number” are translated from the Hebrew word sāpar which has multiple usages in Scripture primarily determined by context. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon favors two definitions – to count things (as in learning the number) and to take account of or to reckon (as to carefully observe and consider). Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words also assigns contextual meanings – to number, count, proclaim, declare, to take account of (as being aware and concerned about each detail). While most commentators interpret a redundant definition of “counting to learn the number” for both words, this does not satisfactorily answer how righteousness was imputed to Abram as a result of his faithful agreement.

A well-reasoned, biblically consistent interpretation of this passage could read like this. “Look now toward heaven, and take account of the stars, if thou be able to recognize the declaration in their appointed sequence: and He said unto him, I will accomplish this through your lineage. And he had faith in what the Lord told him; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”

Most scholars agree that this was Abram’s faith-defining moment. “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness (Galatians 3:6-9). And the scripture (affirming the canonical authority of Genesis), foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with (in the same manner as) faithful Abraham.”

Perhaps Abram’s faith was initiated “before the gospel,” at the Lord’s direction, upon recognition of God’s curse-defying redemptive plan as depicted in the star groupings. Similarly, it may be that Job’s awareness of the constellations carried much deeper meaning for him and may have been instrumental in his faith as well.

Salvation is and has always been by grace, through faith in the sacrificial, shed blood of our innocent substitute, Jesus Christ. Old Testament believers looked ahead. New Testament believers look back. We find the account in the pages of Scripture (see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message”). Perhaps to the ancients, it was revealed in the stars.

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Earth’s Flat and Fixed Past

Over the years, skeptics of biblical authority have tried to marginalize the influence of the Sacred Text and the subscribing faithful by contriving conflicts between the assertions of the Word and the actualities of the world. Two such exercises in error are concerning the shape and universal orientation of the earth.

One popular straw-man label still used to discredit any non-conformist, political or scientific group is the term “flat-earther.” The idea is that uninitiated, biblical literalists once conceived a table-flat earth with precipitous limits based on passages describing earth as having four corners (Isaiah 11:12; Revelation 7:1 – elegantly descriptive of the four directional orientations also referred to as quarters – Revelation 20:8). This “Dark Age” conflict had both a villain and a hero. The villain was the superstitious, ignorant Church and the hero was Christopher Columbus and other brave men of maritime science. The story, of course, plays out with Columbus proving that the earth was round, contradicting the Scripture, and thereby disassociating it from reality.

In the ancient book of Job (edited from a journal approximated at 2,000 BC), God Himself proclaims His origination and management of the daily dawn and likens it to the relationship of clay to a cylinder impression or seal (38:14). Seals were impression templates used by ancient craftsmen to decorate pottery or flat-surface clay fixtures. As the seal turns on the clay leaving its impression for the reader, so the earth rotates revealing the dawn to the observer. The prophet Isaiah referenced the “circle of the earth (40:22)” in his writings dated around 700 BC.

Those who are familiar with the Scriptures and use even the most basic hermeneutic principles recognize that the notion of a flat earth is not remotely intimated.

In refreshing, academic candor, Harvard Professor Stephen J. Gould wrote of the conflict in his book entitled Rocks of Ages; Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life calling it “the silliest and most flagrantly false of all tales…the best example I know for exposing the harm done by the false model of warfare between science and religion (p.111).”

“Christian scholars never proclaimed a flat earth against the findings of science and the knowledge of antiquity, and Columbus fought no battles with ecclesiastical authority over this nonissue (p.125).”

Another straw-notion used to dismantle the authority of Holy Writ was the astronomical conceptualization known as geocentrism – the model of cosmic motion that places the earth in a fixed, stationary position in the center of the universe. While the story has been presented, once again, as a pivotal conflict between religion and science, the truth is they were never at odds (see Scripturosity article “Where Did the Billions of Years Come From? (Part 2) – The Galileo Affair”).

What is interesting, though, is that some Bible students remain insistent on a fixed and centered galactic position for planet earth; one in which our immediate solar system, the distant constellation groupings, and the rest of the universe revolve around it. While they invoke the mathematical parallels between competing motion-models, they must completely ignore the clear observations of astronomy.

I understand and respect the motivation of these zealots, but in actuality the result of their crusade fosters far more scrutiny and ridicule toward the very Divine Document that they are trying to advance.

The reason for proposing such a notion is because some believe that a heliocentric model of cosmic motion (one in which the earth moves around a stationary sun) does harm to the concept of our favored place in the universe. They also believe that references in Scripture to the world not being “moved” are speaking of earth’s motionless status in space. What they fail to recognize is that in space the appearance of stasis is relative within the context of a very dynamic universe.

The eloquent Psalmist, David had knowledge (either through inspiration or ancient astronomy) of this orchestrated heavenly motion when he wrote of the sun’s great circuit going forth unto the ends of it declaring the glory of God (19:6).

Dr. Henry Morris points out in his devotional book Treasures in the Psalms (p.179) that “as the sun moves in a gigantic orbit through the Milky Way Galaxy (an orbit that would require 230 million years for one circuit, at a speed of 600,000 miles per hour), and the galaxy moves in an unknown path relative to the other galaxies of space, its circuit seems truly to be from one end of the heavens to the other.”

Not only that, but the earth is orbiting the sun at a speed of approximately 67,000 miles per hour at a rotational speed of just over 1,000 mph at the equator.

How can those who insist on a literal, motionless earth based on passages such as 1 Chronicles 16:30, or Psalm 93:1, or Psalm 96:10 explain the clear evidence of earth’s motion based on its indisputable position within one of the spiral arms of our galaxy?

The word “moved” has nothing to do with being motionless, but rather steadiness in motion and permanence within its divinely appointed, cosmic course.

They also like to point out that biblical references to the sun rising and setting ought to be taken literally in order to preserve the authority and integrity of the Scriptures. This is clearly an unnecessary attempt to shoehorn a biblical passage into a presumption.

One of the wonders of this miraculous book we call the Bible is that it was authored by omniscient, eternal, Sovereignty for the purpose of being understood by finite, fallen humanity. What would be the point of composing a message for the purpose of directing mankind back into the fellowship for which he was created and then encrypting it in code?

Infinite perspective accommodated finite capacity with a perspicuous message (clearly written – easily understood) of restoration. Keeping in mind the limitations or perspective of his target audience, the Author often uses accommodative or phenomenal language. These verses are referring to the apparent motion of the sun to the observer and not its absolute motion in the cosmos.

In Genesis 1:5, God assigns names to light and darkness. This assignment involves a declaration and an intimation.

The declaration was that the “light time” would be “day” and the dark periods would be “night.”

The intimation is that a cycle had been initiated. From this time forward, earth would be regulated by light/dark…day/night cycles (Genesis 8:22; Job 26:10).

Question: What was the mechanism for these recurrent periods of day and night? Was the light being turned on and off? No…the earth had begun rotating on its axis.

The first day was the impact of a stationary light source, other than the sun (not yet created), on a rotating earth.

These passages seem to be offering context for a right understanding of the earth’s rotational and orbital relationship to the sun that would be created on Day 4.

For the purpose of an accurate description – planet earth is fixed in a heliocentric relationship with the sun in this solar system and seems to be galactocentric in relation to the universe.

In the book of Job, the main character makes the case for his continued God-ward confidence when he wrote, “He hath stretched out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth on nothing (26:7).”

The reference “empty place” comes from the Hebrew word tōhû which was also translated “without form” in Genesis 1:2. The tōhû of Genesis is communicating the formless assembly of the perfectly created elements from which all else was made in the week following. It was Day 1 in which God called time, space, and matter into existence. “In the beginning (time) God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).”

Why is Job 26:7 significant? While it is not necessary to be dogmatic about it, this verse seems to place the Day 1 earth at the center of universal orientation.

Why do some feel the need to “dig in” and defend a geocentric universe? 1) A love and respect for the Bible as inerrant and authoritative. 2) A poorly administered hermeneutic. 3) A misconception of cosmic motion. 4) A misunderstanding of history.

These well-intentioned regents are under the impression that they are maintaining the “ancient landmarks” of biblical traditionalism by taking a geocentric stance. The truth is the notion has been contrived to represent a rationalistic chasm between matters of faith and reason – religion and science. With good intention, geocentric stalwarts are actually legitimizing the straw-man of a faith-based opposition to science.

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 3)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

 

Alleged creationist claim #3 – Education is a process of learning all sides of an issue, so it is appropriate for creationism and evolution to be taught side-by-side in public school science courses. Not to do so is a violation of the principles of education and the civil liberties of creationists. We have a right to be heard, and besides, what is the harm in hearing both sides?

 

Author Shermer elaborates, “Exposure to the many facets of issues is indeed a part of the general educational process, and it might be appropriate to discuss creationism in courses on religion, history, or even philosophy but most certainly not science; similarly, biology courses should not include lectures on American Indian creation myths.”

It is interesting that opponents of the biblical model of origins refer to their counter-paradigm as an –ism. The intimation is that creation is appropriately relegated to a philosophy while evolution is regarded as a scientific fact (or at least so close to being a fact that the uninitiated should not be encumbered with the dubiousness of its status).

I agree with Shermer that a balanced “exposure” is key and that informational suppression is counter to the general education process. But how does an intellect like Michael Shermer reconcile the classification of one cosmogony as philosophical but scientifically invalid and the other as the only appropriate historical axiom from which to contextualize every scientific discipline? This is a disingenuous misrepresentation and a gross suppression of reason. Both are models – theories that help the observer to make sense of the data.

Perhaps if schools consider the study of origins to be requisite to a well-rounded education, the contrasting paradigms ought to be presented in a philosophy or a world culture class. But to claim that evolutionism is satisfactorily scientific and that a creation cosmogony carries no weight to the lab is intellectually insincere.

“There is considerable harm,” warns Shermer, “in teaching creation-science as science because the consequent blurring of the line between religion and science means that students will not understand what the  scientific paradigm is and how to apply it properly.”

This has become the favored war-cry from the evolutionary trenches. Teaching creation as a viable cosmogonical option will only confuse the students and discourage would-be scientists from pursuing a science-centered career. Ultimately, it will weaken our national defenses and stifle medical research putting innocent lives at risk.

Shermer clarifies his distortion, “If the universe and Earth are only about ten thousand years old, then the modern sciences of cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and early human history are all invalid (not just biology)…all science becomes meaningless (p.53).”

The only “blurring” that is taking place is the line of distinction between operational and forensic (reconstructive) science (see Scripturosity article “Blinded By Science” – Part 2). One’s assigned age to the Earth or another’s cosmogonical axiom does not validate or invalidate the scientific disciplines in which they operate. All operational science can function freely and accurately from the perspective of either philosophical starting block – whether it happens to be a literal Genesis or Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.

By way of personal experience, recently I benefitted from the scientific research of the inventor of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine when I herniated one of the disks in my lower back (reminding me of nature’s Curse and adding me to its chorus of groaning). Having the distinct pleasure of meeting and dining with him during a trip to Long Island, it became clear that Dr. Raymond Damadian is not only a man of faith, but is a committed Christian and a young-earth creationist. Clearly, his preferred model of origins did not negatively influence his scientific discoveries or medical inventions.

Because my professional career is in energy exploration, I interact with geologists on a daily basis (see Scripturosity article “Oil, Oil, Everywhere” – Part 2). While the majority of these scientists subscribe to a deep-time, uniformitarian model of earth history, some of the most talented and successful within the profession contextualize their observations from a globally encompassing hydrologic catastrophe as detailed in the Genesis chronicles.

Origins suppositions, while they are certainly influential in worldview development, do not affect operational science.

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 2)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

 

Alleged creationist claim #2 – Science only deals with the here-and-now and thus cannot answer historical questions about the creation of the universe and the origins of life and the human species.

 

This is a straw-man statement assigned incorrectly as the position of the biblical resistance. I would like to assume that these examples are simply based in an ignorance of the true creationist viewpoint or that Mr. Shermer actually heard this defense from a misinformed biblical enthusiast. But my suspicion is that opponents of the creation model are either not careful to research the true position or they intentionally misrepresent the claims in order to distract or re-route the debate into a more defensible posture.

I completely agree with Shermer when he says, “Science does deal with past phenomena, particularly in historical sciences such as cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology.” He even acknowledges that “there are experimental sciences and historical sciences.”

Experimental sciences do measure and test and analyze in the “here-and-now.” Historical sciences, however, require that the informed observer use these measurements and analyses to construct past scenarios that best fit the evidence. What most naturalists are unwilling to concede is that observation is always preceded by presupposition.

One Harvard University paleoanthropologist, David Pilbeam, finally came to grips with the lack of substantive checks and balances within his field of study with this candid assessment in a 1978 article in Nature magazine entitled “Rearranging Our Family Tree.”

“Theory shapes the way we think about, even perceive data…We are unaware of our many assumptions.”

“Conflicting visions of these human ancestors probably says more about our conflicting views of ourselves than about the actual fossil data.”

“In the course of rethinking my ideas about human evolution, I have changed somewhat as a scientist. I am aware of the prevalence of implicit assumptions and try harder to dig them out of my own thinking…Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data…I am more sober than I once was about what the unwritten past can tell us.”

Albert Einstein admitted during an interview with German physicist, Werner Heisenberg, “…on principle, it is quite wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe.”

That is why Michael Shermer and like-minded proponents of naturalism can say, “Evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science.” Likewise, when the Genesis account of origins is overlain as the forensic axiom, the experimental sciences reveal remarkable harmony with the record.

The evolutionists like to present themselves as unimpaired paragons of objectivity, but the truth is no evidential scrutiny is unaffected by a preexisting interpretational bias. In fact, it was a philosophical struggle that changed Charles Darwin’s worldview and his interpretation of every natural observation (see Scripturosity article “Darwin’s Un-natural Selection”).

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Earth’s Two Moons?

Recently a friend of mine sent me an AP article entitled “Earth’s Two Moons? It’s Not Lunacy, But New Theory.” Knowing my position on the age the earth (see Scripturosity article “The Age of the Earth – What Do the Rocks Say”), he submitted, “Other than the part of the theory about this happening billions of years ago, what do you think?”

The article by Seth Borenstein begins, “Earth once had two moons, until one of them made the fatal mistake of smacking into its big sister in what is being called the big splat, some astronomers theorize.

The astronomers came up with this scenario to explain why the moon’s far side is so much more hilly [sic] than the one that is always facing Earth. The theory, outlined in a research paper published Wednesday in the journal Nature, comes complete with computer model runs showing how it would happen and an illustration that looks like the bigger moon getting a pie in the face.

This all supposedly happened about 4.4 billion years ago,” Borenstein continues, “long before there was any life on Earth to gaze up and see the strange sight of dual moons. The moons themselves were young, formed about 100 million years earlier when a giant planet smashed into Earth. They both orbited Earth and sort of rose in the sky together, the smaller one trailing a few steps behind like a little sister in tow.”

The article goes on to explain that the 5,000 mph collision was the inevitable result of the gravitational effect of the planetary heavyweight on its lighter counterpart. The consensus among NASA scientists that agreed to interview was that “it may or may not be right…a very clever idea.” While they can’t find anything wrong with it, they admit that it would not be easily tested or confirmed.

As I mentally overlaid the new theory on the biblical model, I had to dig a little deeper because, by casual recollection of the narrative, it was not simply dismissed.

Genesis 1:16 only identifies the “greater” and “lesser” lights leaving the possibility open for a smaller moon on another orbiting axis whose light deflection was relatively less significant. In Psalm 8 David mentions the ordained “work” of the Creator’s “fingers” – “the moon and the stars.” This would still allow for an additional body orbiting the earth on a collision course with its big sister not recognized from the Psalmist’s much later perspective.

However, if you look at Psalm 136, the anonymous writer gives thanks unto the Lord for the sequence of the Creation Week as detailed in Genesis. In verse 9, he mentions only a single “moon and stars” within the context of the 6 day creation sequence, clarifying the details found in the opening record.

With this textual evidence as my critical criterion, I would have to reject the new “two-moon” theory.

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: A Day at the Museum

Several years ago I was asked to teach Biblical Worldview Studies at Western Pennsylvania Theological Institute – an education branch-ministry of Harvest Baptist Church in Natrona Heights, PA. With my primary research focusing on origins and the history of the ancients, senior pastor and institute principal, Kurt Skelly suggested that I consider offering a trip to the Creation Museum (on the Cincinnati Beltway in Kentucky) as an option for additional class credit for the students. Having already introduced a small group to the museum only a few months earlier (giving me a slight grasp of the logistics necessary),  I agreed.

Four years and multiple trips later, the Creation Museum tours have become a favored event on our church calendar. In an attempt to accommodate as many travelers as possible, my wife, Sheila and I have begun appointing two dates each year for the trips. Generally, one tour is scheduled for the spring or summer and another is organized for the time when most families are on vacation from work and school between Christmas and New Year.

Our most recent tour was conducted on Friday, August 5^th. (Because of the heavy weekend attendance and the featured speakers during the week, we found that it was most profitable to visit on Fridays.) This last group was 28 strong bringing our cumulative traveler total to 282! You can see mention of this trip on Ken Ham’s blog.

Upon arrival and following the distribution of the tickets, we gathered at the “green screen” for a group photo (pictures are made available to visitors at the end of the day with a selection of thematic backgrounds to choose from).

From there we went over to the Special Effects Theater featuring a presentation called “Men in White.” This is a tremendous place to start the day because it sets the framework of inquiry and discovery that will define the tour. The theater is equipped with multiple screens, surround sound, animatronics, and seats that move and spray water! While it is tremendously fun and entertaining, the message challenging the secular-worldview establishment and demonstrating nature’s evidential harmony with the history found in the biblical book of Genesis is profound.

After the theater, we perused some of the exhibits in and around the main lobby while we waited for our reserved showing at the Stargazer’s Planetarium (due to the popularity of this show and the limited seating it is necessary to make reservations). This is a great follow-up to the “Men in White” experience where worldviews are contrasted and challenged and intellects are stimulated. Now, in the planetarium, viewers are taken on a mind-boggling journey to the outer limits of the cosmos inevitably emerging in a state of wonder and worship. The only word that is appropriate is a word that truly should be reserved for the Creator – awesome!

Because we had visited on a Friday, we had the option of attending a special session offered in the Special Effects Theater. The featured speaker was Chris Russell and his presentation was titled “Is Genesis Relevant in Today’s World?” This one hour multi-media lecture demonstrated with humor and reason why so many Christians struggle with their faith. Mr. Russell challenged the assemblage to look at our world from the perspective of an historical Genesis rather than trying to shoehorn Genesis into the phenomenon that we observe in, on, and beyond our world. He illustrated the remarkable compatibility of natural observation with the events detailed in the Sacred Record. Many of our group considered this portion of the tour to be their highlight.

At this point everyone is generally getting pretty hungry, so we went over to Noah’s Café for a delicious lunch before continuing.

With the contextual foundation established in the morning, the group was now equipped to enter the main body of the museum. The tour begins by demonstrating that neither the secular nor the scriptural worldviews have a corner on the evidence. They are both viewing the same data and phenomena. The disparate conclusions are rooted in their axioms – the intellectual or philosophical points from which they approach any evidence.

Because the Bible is our starting point, the course of the museum directs the visitors to appreciate the authority of the Text and understand the historical decline of its impact on culture. Once the Bible and its message have been marginalized, then the preserving influence on culture is diminished. The exhibits represent the inevitable, societal degradation and the uninhibited effects of the historic Curse.

The group is then funneled into small theater that introduces the six days of creation and from there into a large room full of flat screen televisions broadcasting evidences from various disciplines of science and their beautiful compatibility with a Creator-based cosmogony.

Next we entered the “Walk Through History” which took us through the creation of man, the Garden of Eden, the Fall, the Curse, the great Flood of Noah’s day (including a demonstration of ancient maritime shipbuilding technique likely used to build the Ark), the Tower of Babel and the dispersion of the world’s people groups.

The climax of the day is the experience of the “Last Adam Theater.” The film is narrated by a paleontologist who testifies to the viewer that the biblical worldview is more than just filling in the intellectual blanks left by evolution and embarrassing the proponents of “deep time” naturalism. It is all about directing the seeker toward the Creator and His redeeming sacrifice on our behalf. Using dramatic license, it offers perspective through the reflections of Jesus’ mother, Mary and the testimony of a Roman soldier at the crucifixion. The message from “the beginning” is, clearly, the restoration of forfeited fellowship and the Creator’s solution to mankind’s deficit. An appeal is made for the seeker to trust the purposeful sacrifice of the “Last Adam” (Jesus Christ) as personal payment for their inherent debt introduced by the first Adam.

Upon exiting the theater, we stepped into a coffee/snack shop where we all had refreshments before going up to the bookstore as the final stop of a most inspiring day.

If you have never prioritized the Creation Museum as a destination, plan to take a trip in the near future. Your intellect will be stimulated, your assumptions will be challenged, and your faith will be strengthened (and perhaps even initiated).

Feel free to contact me through the blog “Comments” or at dmarcj@penneco.com if you are interested in joining us or just learning how to maximize your own visit.

Read Full Post »

Table of Contents

The purpose of this page is to provide Scripturosity viewers with a “one-stop” topically sorted representation of the articles. Any article is easily accessed by typing the title into the “search” bar at the top of home page.

Top 10 by viewership popularity 

Gospel Message

She Shall Be Called Woman

Human Diversity (Parts 1–2)

The Age of the Earth – What Do the Rocks Say

Where Did Cain Get His Wife? (Parts 1, 2, 3)

Where Did the Billions of Years Come From? (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4)

Understanding the Book of Job (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Geological Support for the Genesis Flood (Parts 1, 2, 3)

The “Ark Encounter” Theme Park

Alien Infatuation

Biblical Commentary

Why Should I Care about the Genealogies?

The Last Days

The Mabbul

Yea, Hath God Said?

After the Similitude of Adam’s Transgression

In the Beginning…Love

Divine Intimacy – Creation’s Ripple Effect

The Gospel Message

Let’s Ride

Naked Truth (Parts 1-2)

A Gap in Reason (Parts 1-2)

Who Wrote Genesis? (Parts 1-2)

How to Read Genesis (Parts 1-2)

The Rainbow Covenant

Plant-ing Seeds of Doubt

The Genesis Serpent

Noah’s New World (Parts 1-3)

The Tyrant of Babel

The Curse of Eden (Parts 1-3)

An Historical Genesis – Why Does it Matter? (Parts 1-3)

I’ll Have a Steak!

Noah’s Vineyard (Parts 1-2)

Genesis and the Resurrection

Understanding the Book of Job (Parts 1-5)

Philosophy

Fertilizing the Roots of Racism

Creation Evangelism

Conscience and Intellect

Darwin’s Un-Natural Selection

Fact and Theory

Deep Time Warp (Parts 1-2)

Blinded By Science (Parts 1-2)

The Curse and the Second Law

Where Did the Billions of Years Come From? (Parts 1-4)

Legitimizing the Straw Man

Human Destiny (Parts 1-3)

Intellectual Invention

Will Science Find God?

Time’s Arrow, Time’s Archer

Anthropology

In the Beginning Was the Word

The Battle for Our History

The Longevity of the Ancients (Parts 1-4)

Who Were the Giants of Noah’s Day (Parts 1-3)

Mankind – Favored, Not Fortunate

She Shall Be Called Woman

Where Did Cain Get His Wife? (Parts 1-3)

Noah’s Ark (Parts 1-4)

The Tower of Babel (Parts 1-3)

Out of Africa

The Settlers of the Isles

Shem – The Seed of Blessing

The Peleg Event

Eber’s Other Son

Language – Created or Evolved (Parts 1-2)

Human Diversity (Parts 1-2)

Astronomy

Extraterrestrial Contact

Let There Be Light

The Heavens Declare

Alien Infatuation

Light Travel and the Age of the Earth

Earth’s Two Moons

Geology

The Age of the Earth – What Do the Rocks Say?

Oil, Oil, Everywhere (Parts 1-3)

What about the Flood Waters? (Parts 1-4)

Geological Support for the Genesis Flood (Parts 1-3)

“The Energy Within” Presentation (Parts 1-3)

Biology

The Orchard of Life’s Kinds

After Their Kinds

Natural Selection – Discipline or Dogma?

Light Travel and the Age of the Earth

Current Events

The Believer and Global Climate Change

The Ark Encounter Theme Park

Lecturing on Long Island

A Week at WalkRight

Jackie Robinson – Breaking the Color Barrier

Answers for Evo

A Day at the Museum

 

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Light Travel and the Age of the Earth

One of the oft cited observations as evidence of “deep-time” universal development is that of distant starlight.

The biblical view is that God created the celestial light bearers on Day 4 of time’s 6,000 year arrow in the expanse between earth’s atmosphere and the 3^rd heaven (the heaven of God’s throne; Rev. 4:1,2). Those who oppose the accuracy and historical merit of the ancient Record claim that the phenomenon of light travel requires an “arrow” length far greater than the biblical timeline allows.

Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys represents the phenomenal dilemma in his book Starlight and Time.

“If the universe is so young, how can we see light from stars that are more than 10,000 light-years away? A light-year is the distance that light travels at its present speed in one year, about ten trillion kilometers (six trillion miles). For example, consider the most frequent observable very distant objects that astronomers can see in the sky – galaxies. Galaxies are large clusters of stars, typically 100 billion or so, roughly 100,000 light-years in diameter. There are about 100 billion galaxies within the viewing range of our best telescopes. The galaxy we are part of, the Milky Way, is a very typical galaxy.

A relatively close neighboring galaxy, M31 in Andromeda, is supposed to be so distant that light traveling at today’s speed would take about two million years to reach us. At that speed, if the universe were only six to ten thousand years old, the first light from the Andromeda galaxy could hardly have traveled more than a few percent of its way toward earth. Yet stargazers in the northern hemisphere can see it with binoculars.

In the southern hemisphere, people can see our nearest neighbor galaxies, the two Magellanic clouds, with the naked eye. Yet they are supposed to be on the order of 100,000 light-years away. The most distant galaxy astronomers have observed to date is supposed to be about 12 billion light-years away. If the universe is so young, people ask, how can we be seeing the light from such distant objects?”

The question is a good one and worthy of a rational answer. How is the Christian to reconcile his axiomatic regard for Scripture with the observation of “deep” light from a “young” earth?

Two of this generation’s premier biblical physicists have proposed scientifically consistent answers to the question of ancient light reaching a young earth. While there are certainly more substantive propositions (supported by enough equations and formulas to make my head explode), these are the two theories involving Einstein’s Theory of Relativity that offer my limited comprehension the most satisfaction.

The first is highlighted in Dr. Humphrey’s previously cited work Starlight and Time and is referred to as “gravitational time dilation.” The foundation of the theory, and according to General Relativity, is that gravity affects time. Observations using atomic clocks, even within our limited frame of reference on planet earth, confirm that clocks at high altitude move more quickly than clocks positioned at low altitude.

If you have one clock at the Dead Sea and another at the summit of Mount Everest, GTD explains why the clock on Mount Everest advances slightly faster than the one at the Dead Sea. Dr. Humphrey’s asks and answers the question, “Which one is showing (or running at) the right time? Both are – in their own frame of reference. There is no longer any way to say which is the correct rate at which time runs – it all depends on where you are in relation to a gravitational field.”

By way of reconciling the physics with the Creation model of Genesis, Dr. Humphreys offers the following.

“What this new cosmology shows is that gravitational time distortion in the early universe would have meant that while a few days were passing on earth, billions of years would have been available for light to travel to earth. It still means that God made the heavens and the earth (i.e. the whole universe) in six ordinary days, only a few thousand years ago. But with the reality revealed by GR (general relativity), we know that we have to ask – six days as measured by which clock? In which frame of reference? The mathematics of this new theory shows that while God makes the universe in six days in the earth’s reference frame (“Earth Standard Time,” if you like), the light has ample time in the extra-terrestrial reference frame to travel the required distances.”

The other theory is proposed by astrophysicist, Dr. Jason Lisle called “anisotropic synchrony convention (ASC)” in a recent article published in the 1^st quarter 2011 Answers magazine.

The premise of ASC invokes an aspect of Einstein’s physics which proposes “that the speed of light in one direction cannot be objectively measured, so it must be stipulated (agreed upon by convention). For example,” Lisle explains, “if light travels from A to B and then back to A, it will always take the same amount of time to make the trip (because its speed is always the same), and that time is objectively measureable. However, the time it takes to go just from A to B, or just from B to A is not objectively measureable. So the speed of light in one direction must be stipulated. In other words, we are free to choose what the speed of light will be in one direction, though the round trip time averaged speed is always constant.”

The article quotes Einstein from his book Relativity: The Special and General Theory concerning light’s one-way speed. “(It) is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can choose of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.”

So while the round trip travel of light is, of consensus, measureable, the half distance of the travel is not necessarily splitting the time of the round trip in half. In other words according to Einstein, one of the trips could be instantaneous with the other accounting for the full measure.

Dr. Lisle proposes that ASC explains the immediate terrestrial appreciation of the stellar luminaries as detailed in Genesis. “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years; And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so (1:14,15).”

Notice that the passage distinguishes between their presence (Let there be) and their purpose (let them be for). At the moment of their appearance their purpose was accomplished.

“And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth (1:17).”

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Alien Infatuation

Physicist Stephen Hawking is a man scarcely in need of an introduction. At the mention of his name, all peripheral shuffle is stifled in a sort of E.F. Hutton moment waiting for the icon of scientific enlightenment to speak. It is curious to me, based on his recent rants in alien absurdity, whether the current hush is the result of intellectual reverence or subliminal pity.

Respected voices within the science community are even becoming a bit uneasy, firing up the spin machine as a damage control measure seeking to salvage a fading reputation and, at the same time, distancing the mainstream.

In the June 2011 Scientific American magazine, author and magazine editor Michael Shermer respectfully disagrees with recent claims made by Hawking in an article entitled “The Myth of Evil Aliens.” The article focuses on a quote made by the eccentric physicist in a 2010 Discovery Channel documentary in response to a question about the human search for extraterrestrials.

“We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach.”

Based on the unflattering history of human advancement including enslavement and destruction of underdeveloped civilizations, Hawking offers, “If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”

Carefully and politely Shermer objects; not to the notion of aliens, but to a violent alien takeover of planet earth. “Any civilization capable of extensive space travel will have moved far beyond exploitative colonialism and unsustainable energy sources.” He obviously didn’t buy into the premise conveyed in the blockbuster, sci-fi thriller Avatar as did Hawking.

Why are figures of such high academic regard so enamored with intelligent life beyond planet earth? The answer is quite simple. They believe that such a discovery would constitute a considerable chink in the buckler of the biblical literalist. By calling into question the record of origins, skeptics can disassociate from the attached claim of a governing Sovereign and any corresponding notion of personal accountability.

When Bruno Maddox visited Kentucky’s Creation Museum on assignment for Discover magazine, he conducted an interview with the brilliant, staff astrophysicist, Jason Lisle. Dr. Lisle has authored several books ranging from astronomy to logic. He has claims to multiple scientific discoveries as well as contributions in the field of general relativity. He is a highly regarded reviewer/technical advisor for other scientific publications and has authored many in-depth papers for peer review in the Journal of Creation. Instead of asking why his research has lead him to settle on a biblical worldview or noting his preferred-speaker status or his direction over the planetarium or any other facet of his extensive academic and professional resume’, Maddox cleverly decided to quiz Lisle – “a fresh-faced 32 year-old astrophysicist” – about life beyond earth.

“Presently I bring up space aliens, wondering whether their discovery would pose a problem to the creationist creed. Lyle grows visibly uneasy. Well, it would depend, he tells me, and off he goes, talking very fast indeed. He doesn’t want to be dogmatic, because the Bible doesn’t explicitly say there aren’t extraterrestrials…

As he continues, I find myself reminded of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s proposition in The Crack-Up, that the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. Fitzgerald’s first-rate mind, of course, eventually stopped retaining the ability to function, and watching Lisle try to reconcile the cutting edge of modern planetary physics with the offhand assertions of a religious tract written thousands of years ago by an unknown assortment of bearded semi-cave dwellers, I found myself wondering how long the poor chap has (February 2007 Discover – Blinded By Science).”

The smug Maddox was obviously pleased with his cunning diversion, but underlying was the unmistakable assumption that talk of aliens presents an obstacle to creationist dogma.

First of all, the Bible is not silent with regard to visitors from beyond our zone of habitation in the cosmos. The writer of the 1^st century letter to the converted Hebrews reminded the recipients to show hospitality even to strangers “for thereby some have entertained angels unawares (13:2).” The book of Job opens an illustrative portal to the heaven of God’s throne when the bene elohim (sons of God; angels) were required to give an accounting of their activities. Satan answered that he had been “to and fro in the earth…walking up and down in it (1:6,7).” Lot was visited by two angels in the city of Sodom and kept them in his home against the unnatural advances of lustful men, even bartering the chaste bodies of his daughters for the strangers’ safe keeping (Genesis 19). So when asked about the Biblicist position regarding the likelihood of extraterrestrial intelligence, the student of Scripture can respond in the affirmative without hesitation.

But to the notion of alien intelligence (humanoid or otherwise) inhabiting another planet, the thematic intimation throughout the Bible is that the earth and its life are unique to the universe.

“For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else (Isaiah 45:18).”

“The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’s: but the earth hath He given to the children of men (Psalm 115:16).”

The idea of alien space life is the contemplative offspring of evolutionary doctrine. Given the right conditions and the necessary time, life could evolve on any number of the billions of other planets in our galaxy and beyond.

The only problem is that no planets within a habitable zone of a host star have been found. Recent claims of such a planet within the Gliese star system only emphasize the over-zealous nature of the search.

Despite peer review analysis finding no trace of the prized planet, Steven Vogt, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California in Santa Cruz, foisted the discovery to the fore telling Discovery News, “Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say that the chances of life on this planet are 100 percent.”

In Washington D.C., astronomer Paul Butler with the Carnegie Institution told reporters, “The question wouldn’t be to defend that there is life at Gliese 581g. The question would be to demonstrate that there isn’t.”

These are remarkably bold declarations about a planet whose existence is still a matter of debate. It is clear to me that the designation “faithful” extends beyond those clinging to “offhand assertions of a religious tract written thousands of years ago by an unknown assortment of bearded semi-cave dwellers.”

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Creation Museum

I just received notice that the Creation Museum is running a limited time, special admission offer. For those of you that have not had the chance to join one of our organized tours, but have been threatening to visit for some time, this may be the opportunity you’ve been waiting for.

Please go to the link for details.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/creation-museum/2011/01/29/a-special-offer/

Read Full Post »