Montana's Song

Tonight the road roamed under a night sky splendid with stars.  The milky way shone with an icy brilliance as satellites silently traced their paths across the sky.  The grass lent its scent to the night air, giving it an earthy aroma.  The pines silhouetted against the starry sky added spice to the air. 

The road meandered by a small river and listened in as that swollen stream whispered its secret sorrows to the shore in the still places and roared out its joy at being a river in the rapids.

The road was joined by a brook, babbling as it made its way to the river, passing on the gossip from the icy springs and melting snows further up the mountain. 

A nearby campfire burned with joyful abandon, lighting up the trees and fields nearby in the excess of its exuberance.  The crack of the wood being chopped to give the flames life punctuated the river's monologue. 

Creation sings the Father's song.

Hallelujah! Let all creation stand and sing,

"Hallelujah!" Fill the earth with songs of worship;

Tell the wonders of creation's King.

Just one thing

Can I just say that it really bugs me when Christians promote things that are clearly not academically sound? Are we so desperate for "proof" of our beliefs that we abandon discernment? So fearful that the Bible will be crushed under the weight of secular criticism? So terrified that Christianity will abandoned like a sinking ship unless we provide the masses with "scientific" proof that their beliefs are not unfounded? Honestly, if you're going to make something up to make yourself feel better, at least make it less easy to disprove.

The PaleoBabble Blog has had two such examples in the last week or so.

The most recent talks of a claim that archaeologists have found giant skeletons, thus proving the Biblical passages that mention giants? Apparently this claim can be found on some creationist websites. How unfortunate.

The older posting offers a link to this article, claiming that Adam's body, without a naval, was found in Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat, thus proving special creation. Yes, and aliens have been captured by the government in area 51 and the ark of the covenant was recovered by Indiana Jones and is in some government storage somewhere. All true. Proof? Well, I would have proof...but the government is suppressing it.

I mean, I realize that Christianity is bound to appear foolish (see I Corinthians 1), but really, do you have to go out of your way to make it appear utterly ridiculous?

Nahal Ammud

Today I went hiking in the Upper Galilee.  It was amazing.  It's a place with very little Biblical significance, so I hadn't been there.  It does have significance to Jewish mysticism, but our reason for going there was simply for pleasure.  We started up near the top of Nahal Ammud and hiked some distance down it.  There was some scrambling in a couple areas, but in general it was pretty easy, as far as hiking goes.  It was beautiful, though, and also mostly deserted except for us, which was nice.  I don't think I've ever seen that many wildflowers in my life - they carpeted the hill sides: lovely sights for the eyes and sweet smells for the nose. :)

Here are some examples of the scenery we saw.  

Yes, they had cows.  They were cute and I talked to them.

Prickly but beautiful thistles.  

Also very cute tadpoles.  

These were some of my favorite flowers because of their variety of color.  The same plant could have flowers with colors ranging from purple to pink.  

Barbed wire! :)

It was a wonderful day, really.  It was nice to get out of town and have a bit of a break from school.  

Today for Jews was a special blessing of the sun.  I think the words they use for that blessing are fitting to end with:

"ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם עושה מעשה בראשית"

"Blessed are You, LORD, our God, King of the Universe who makes the works of Creation."

Love God with your Mind!

"Sadly, perhaps no group is more gullible to these sorts of claims than evangelical Christians." ~Todd Bolen

The unfortunate thing is he could be talking about a wide variety of claims. In this specific case he is talking about the claim a new movie makes that Noah's Ark has been found on a mountain in Iran, but the fact is that Christians are often far too willing to welcome any harebrained idea with open arms, so long as it appears to be at least mildly on "their side." Poor scholarship and a lack of discernment are rampant in the church today, and at times that seems especially true in the more conservative circles. Perhaps it is because there are so few truly conservative scholars doing work today that anything published that seems to support of conservative view is hailed as "proof that the Bible is true!", before the truth of its claims are fairly evaluated. I am, perhaps, being excessively harsh. I will not deny that there are some good, Christian scholars at work and it is possible that even some of the unscholarly "proofs" have some value in them. Nevertheless, we should be able to do better. Christians should be on the leading edge of scholarship in every field, instead of lagging behind, piggy-backing on the shoulders of people who have a different set of foundational beliefs.

This, roughly, is the topic of conversation that came up the other day as my family was talking. We came up with 3 specific areas of study where not only do we rather disagree with the general direction that "secular" scholars are taking the field, but where there is a lack of good, Bible-based scholars.

1. The study of origins (Creation vs. Evolution). This is my dad's passion, and I admit, I take more than a passing interest in it. The thing is, my dad really believes that the Bible contains the answers to the debate and that in ignoring that, both secular and (often) Christian scientists have taken a wrong turn. Unfortunately, Christian scholars often also have really bad science, making them unacceptable to both sides. With "better" (though really also far from perfect) science on the side of the evolutionists, many Christians have been enticed away from faith in the Bible and even faith in God. If only we had a few good scientists who also had good theology! (Some good rhetoric and logic skills wouldn't hurt either. I've seen too many decent scientists/theologians who lose on their presentations.)

2. Counseling and the interaction between soul, brain, and body. (Psychology and Psychiatry vs. Biblical or Nouthetic Counseling) This was brought up by my brother, but is also an area in which I am interested. The problem is that, in general, Psychology and Biblical Counseling are diametrically opposed. Secular Psychology assumes that people are basically good and the Bible says that people are basically sinful. With this very basic difference in understanding of the root of people's problems, obviously the proffered solutions will differ greatly. Psychology, as I understand it, claims to deal more with the immaterial part of a person (mind, soul, emotions, etc.) The Bible was written by the One who created the immaterial part of a person, so it seems likely that, when applied properly, it would have better answers than those made up by other fallible humans. Therefore, I think Biblical Counseling has an edge over modern Psychology. However, we are not merely immaterial beings - we have a physical part, and the two interact and are inseparable. There are times when something going on in the physical body affects the "psyche" or soul. Unfortunately, there are relatively few Biblical counselors (or even Psychologists) who know much of anything about medicine or the brain. Psychiatrists try to fill this need, but there are very few Psychiatrists with a high view of scripture. I dare say there may be some, but I've never heard of any. Think of the connections that could be made and problems that could be solved by a Biblical Counselor who also happened to be a Neuropsychiatrist. Perhaps instead of recklessly trusting drugs that we don't understand to change behavior they could actually get to the root of any physical causes while still counseling godliness for any spiritual causes.

3. Archaeology (especially as it relates to the Bible). This has been my area of consideration for the past semester, and I have probably already written about it. Oh well, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll talk about it anyway. I admit it. I've been brought up to believe the Bible. So imagine my surprise when I realized that almost no one at my school (teacher-wise, at least) believed anything in the Bible. Ok, actually, I wasn't that surprised, and it wasn't quite that bad. Many of the teachers believe parts. What did surprise me, though, was the fact that some of the harshest critics of the historicity of the Bible are theologians. I was also surprised to find that the most conservative scholars in the field didn't even take the Bible seriously. Some of the conclusions they draw, while seeming to support the Bible, in my view actually rather undermine it. Let me try to give an example to explain. The Bible says that Abraham left Haran and went into Canaan (see Genesis 12). Scholars, perhaps because they don't believe the Bible to be anything more than a rough historical remembrance of events long ago, say, "Hmm...let's look for a time when people were migrating from Mesopotamia to Canaan to try to fix the time of the Patriarchs." And if they find such a time, they say, "See, the Bible is true, in that it faithfully preserved a memory of the past. Abraham himself probably didn't exist, but people like him did!" On the other hand, I, believing Abraham to be a real person, would say, "Wouldn't Abraham's migration be rather unique at the time he left? Otherwise, why would God have to give him special instructions? And if He did, why would it take any special faith on Abraham's part to follow them? If everyone else was doing it, what was the big deal? Wouldn't it seem more likely that this movement of Abraham was very unusual at this time?" I could be wrong, but looking at the Bible, I often find that I would make fundamentally different assumptions than those that most scholars make.) At any rate, the more I learn about archaeology, the more questions I have. What is presented in class really doesn't fit with what the Bible says, which brings many questions to my mind. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many people in the field asking those same questions. There is such a need for conservative Christians in archaeology!

I'll add a couple disclaimers here. :)
1. I by no means want to set up scientific knowledge as a sort of "savior." I do think, though, that as Christians we should pursue knowledge, both scientific and other, to the glory of God, for the furtherance of the kingdom, and to help us better understand Him. As Christians who know and worship the God of truth, I also think we are best equipped to find more truth, if we apply ourselves rightly.

2. Obviously, I believe the Bible is true, and I take a fairly literal, conservative interpretation of it. This point of view is generally scorned by researchers and scientists in the above fields. Leaving aside the question of whether or not this is the correct view of scripture, I think that science is done a great diservice by people automatically rejecting anything from this view point. If nothing else, it offers a different set of base assumptions and therefore asks different questions than pretty much everyone else in the field. I would contend that if science is to progress and stay healthy, it needs to be able to answer these questions too.

And the conclusion? I still have more questions than answers, and still have only one lifetime to try to figure things out. So, if anyone reading this has interests in any of these areas (or other areas - we need Christians everywhere!) maybe let this challenge you to pursue excellence in your field, to be uniquely Biblical in your viewpoint, and to share your findings with the world.

Miracles

,Miracles, I suppose, are really a rather controversial subject. Certainly numerous things have been written on them -- skeptics trying to explain away recorded Biblical miracles, spiritualist trying to prove the existence of various random miracles, and everything in between.

I was thinking about miracles today, mostly because of a vague memory of Israel. I remember riding past a village or something and our tour guide explaining that this particular people group believed that the messiah would be born suddenly of a man. Now that's an odd miracle. And I was thinking that such a miracle does not seem like something the God of the Bible would do. Which made me wonder: are there some miracles that really are in some sense impossible? I don't want to put limits on God's power, but on the other hand, His nature does limit what He can and cannot do (He can't sin, etc.) It rather seems to me that having the messiah born suddenly of a man would kind of go against God's nature. Let me explain my reasoning.

I am admittedly a geek, but because of my scientific background, I do think of God as the Great Scientist. Not only that, of course, but he did create the world and holds it together. There's nothing we've discovered in science that He did not first invent and create. He made rules and put limits on the world, which are good and save us from chaos. I think He follows His own rules. Even in miracles. I don't mean to make miracles sound less miraculous because they aren't. Even if we knew all the rules by which the universe operates (which we don't) there would be no way we could apply them to make these miracles happen ourselves.

Let's take the virgin birth, for example. Mary had all the parts necessary for life in her body. For God to tweak one of her eggs just a little to turn it into a sperm, for example, would be all that was required. I don't know that we could do that today, but we definitely could see how it theoretically could be done. From then on naturally processes would be followed. This is drastically different from what would be required in the messianic birth referred to before. To have a man give birth at all goes against nature. For it to be sudden would require basically an act of creation ex nihilo by God. I don't think that's how God works (in fact, I know that's not how He worked in the birth of the messiah). Thus, I would call it an "impossible" miracle.

I'd go on with a few other examples, but I need to go to bed. Let me know if y'all have any thoughts. :)

Truth

The other day my roommate and I went on a looooonnnnnggg trip. We left on a Saturday, ended up in in eastern half of North Dakota, and got back on Wednesday. I suppose that we averaged about 4 hours of driving a day. Which isn't bad compared to some people, but I, for one, was very tired of being in the car. To pass the time in the car we listened to a couple books on tape, both of which, through some odd coincidence, turned out to be by Agatha Christie.

For those who have never read a book by Christie, allow me to sum up the basic plot of many of her books (and of one of the ones we happened to listen to):

1. Crime is committed
2. Crime is discovered (generally in the form of a dead body)
3. Detective arrives on the scene, too late to prevent the tragedy but determined to find the perpetrator.
4. Through physical evidence and interviews with the suspects the detective complies a list of eclectic and nonsensical clues and questions that don't seem to fit together at all, such as:
1. The clue of the open door
2. The clue of no foot prints in the flower garden
3. The clue of the duplicate daggers
4. The clue of the girl with anxious eyes
   
5. The clue of where the body was
6. The clue of the chauffeur being sent away when guests were expected
7. The clue of the South American cigarette
   
5. The brilliant detective manages to fit all the bizarre clues into their proper places and arrives at the correct conclusion of who is guilty.
   

Then, by another strange "coincidence" my roommate and I had the opportunity to look at the Creation museum under construction in Glendive, and the two in conjunction started me thinking.

In a crime, no one would argue that there really is one person who is guilty of the crime, and the others are not, not matter how the evidence looks. In a novel, the detective always seems to be able to find that guilty person by correctly arranging the facts of the case. For example, the South American cigarette found by the body makes it look like someone from Chile is the criminal, until it is realized that the cigarettes were planted to confuse investigators. There are almost always at least two ways to look at any piece of evidence. The lack of foot prints in the garden may be because no one has walked in the garden for a long time, or it may be that someone recently smoothed it to erase their foot prints. The same fact, two interpretations. There's no lack of possible interpretations. The problem is to find one that fits ALL the facts of the crime.

In my mind, the debate between Creation and Evolution is much the same. They have, for the most part, the same evidence (though, unfortunately, both sides sometimes ignore evidence that they don't like). Both see "billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth" as Ken Ham says. One side says the animals lived and were buried slowly, over billions of years. The other side claims that most of this happened in one catastrophic event. Both have certain lines of evidence that they favor to support their side. The second side sites fossils that clearly were formed in times of catastrophe while the first side asks, "If it all happened at once, why do we never find fossils of dinosaurs with humans or even other more highly evolved mammals?" I admit that I believe one side over the other, but in all honesty, I must say that to this point, neither side has done a good job of putting all the evidence together in a way that makes sense and is consistent with all known facts.

Is their truth that can be known in this area? Undoubtedly. Indeed, perhaps some already know the truth, as detectives sometimes do, even before they can prove it. All that remains, then, is to collect and compile the evidence in a way so that the judge and jury can see what the detective sees and will convict the proper criminal.

We need a Hercule Poirot in the study of origins.