Science and the Bible Video Series

I recently completed a four-part series on Science and the Bible for a suburban Melbourne church, Eltham Baptist. Here are the links to the four entries in the videos taken of the series:

The Philosophy and Theology of Creation

Science & The Bible (Part 1) – Andrew Brown from Eltham Baptist Church on Vimeo.

The History of Interaction of the Bible and Science

Science & The Bible (Part 2) – Andrew Brown from Eltham Baptist Church on Vimeo.

The Cosmos

Science & The Bible (Part 3) – Andrew Brown from Eltham Baptist Church on Vimeo.

The Earth Sciences
Science & The Bible (Part 4) – Andrew Brown from Eltham Baptist Church on Vimeo.

I didn’t hold strictly to my titles at all points, but you may find something interesting there.

Advertisements

A Quick Thought on Christian Evidences from the Gospel of John

If I could have one event proven beyond doubt historically, it would be the physical resurrection of Jesus.

So it struck me as funny that, as I read the end of John chapter 19 in the last couple of days, the writer (for me, as I understand it, John the apostle) seemed to want to prove at this point in the story, not simply that Jesus really lived again, though he does spend time in chapter 20 establishing that too, but also, maybe especially, that he in fact really died!

John 19:34-35 in the Greek looks like this (thanks to BibleWorks):

ἀλλ᾽ εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εὐθὺς αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ. καὶ ὁ ἑωρακὼς μεμαρτύρηκεν, καὶ ἀληθινὴ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἡ μαρτυρία, καὶ ἐκεῖνος οἶδεν ὅτι ἀληθῆ λέγει, ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς πιστεύ[σ]ητε.

And in the NET Bible it looks like this:

But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out immediately. And the person who saw it has testified (and his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth), so that you also may believe.

So the author gives his best assurance at this point that Jesus really died (hence the blood has begun to separate). The temptation for his audience was apparently not to disbelieve the resurrection so much as to disbelieve the death of Jesus. Was John the evangelist to the Gnostics, attracted to the transcendent, pre-existent Christ but reluctant to believe that he was really physical, fleshly and mortal. (I’m reminded of the scene in The Matrix where Agent Smith has captured Morpheus and expresses his revulsion for his, and his real world’s, smell and sweat, its tangible, ‘sensible’ physicality.)

I know this is a world of debate and discussion, including when we can say Gnostics really got going, and when the Gospel of John was written. I’m not a New Testament specialist and showing my ignorance.

But it’s interesting, is it not?

Joshua and Jihad: Part II of Joshua, Jesus and Jihad

Is it only the end or purpose of jihad that we want to quibble with Islamic State over, or is it the means as well?

Explosions at Miramar Airshow.jpg
Explosions at Miramar Airshow“. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.

To address this part of our two-part series, now addressing ‘Joshua and Jihad’, I will interact with an article by Andrew Shead in Eternity magazine from late last year:

“HOLY WAR: Islamic State & Israel in the Old Testament.” Eternity, November 2014, 19-20. Published by the Bible Society. Also accessible online at http://www.biblesociety.org.au/news/holy-war-islamic-state-israel-old-testament.

Continue reading

Mini-Book Review: The Adam Quest

Tim Stafford, The Adam Quest: Eleven Scientists Who Held on to a Strong Faith While Wrestling with the Mystery of Human Origins (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2013).

Adam Quest

With a subtitle worthy of the eighteenth century, almost, this book was recommended to me in early December. I saw it on a bookstore shelf in mid-December and bought it, and had it read in about a week and a half.

It’s an evangelical Christian treatment of the evergreen issue of understanding creation (ranging a bit broader than simply ‘human origins’), from the/a senior writer for Christianity Today. Well-researched and well-written, what really makes it reader-friendly is its biographical tack. It is not just about ideas but about people and their personal odysseys (odyssies? I’m not near a dictionary). And people are always interesting to other people. So I finished this book quickly because I found the personal stories so interesting.

But it is also handy to explore ideas by the biographical route. In this book we get to wrestle with issues of truth concerning creation and science through the lenses of other individual persons’ own quests for truth, in the context of all the human hangups, prejudices, social obligations and relationships, human and divine, that go with being human. It’s real thinking in the context of real life, complicated by real politics. So I related to these stories and liked them.

The eleven primary stories feature well-qualified scientists whose convictions about creation are arranged in a steady sequence from strictly young-earth, as it were six-day creationism, through to those who believe in an old earth (progressive creation) and on to theistic evolutionists. The names are on the whole quite well known, another asset for the work. The movement represents an increasing proximity to Stafford’s own theistic-evolutionist sympathies, revealed at the end of the book, and these sympathies are detectable as an undertone throughout the book. That notwithstanding, I found Stafford’s treatment generally even-handed. He sought to avoid demonising or patronising any participants, and largely succeeded.

I should mention that within the eleven major stories are embedded many more in shorter compass. I should give you examples, but I’m on holidays and have snatched the chance for some public wi-fi, and don’t have the book with me. But I recall seeing a nutshell bio of Intelligent Design advocate Philip Johnson offered within a fuller treatment of another ID advocate, one of the researchers at the Discovery Institute, as I recall.

It was fascinating to read about Kurt Wise, Michael Behe, Francis Collins, John Polkinghorne, and many other important figures in Christian discussions about creation. It was also interesting to see whose careers really flourished, and whose seemed somewhat stillborn, or remained starved of funding or mainstream acceptance.

Well, enough words! It’s inexpensive and available, and if you’re interested in creation and evolution, and like human stories, I recommend this book to you.

A Tasty Snippet from Jeremiah 10

Well, just wrote a whole post on this and lost the lot just before saving. Hmph.

To be brief, then, there’s a ripper little near-palindrome and the only piece of Aramaic in the Old Testament outside of Ezra and Daniel except for two words used as a name for a pile of rocks by Laban in Genesis.

It’s seemingly given to Jewish exiles in Babylon as a comeback line for locals who want to mock them for worshipping the invisible (and lone) god of an insignificant and now conquered people.

Here’s a line they can use:

“Tell them this: ‘These gods, who did not make the heavens and the earth, will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.'” (Jer 10:11 NIV)

Like any good comeback line, it has the virtues of carrying a truth, and also of sounding cool. This diagram shows that it is almost a palindrome, one of those lines like ‘racecar’ or ‘a man, a plan, a canal, panama’, that works the same way forwards and backwards. This one mainly works aurally rather than visually, but here it is with the transliterated Aramaic to give you the idea. (Created using Prezi.)

Jeremiah 10.11

There’s the Maker God, and there are the made gods. Big difference. Another gem from a fascinating book!

Did the Camel Break the Bible’s Back?

A current discussion relating to Genesis 12-50 that has crossed my desk…with wise comments from George Athas in Sydney.

With Meagre Powers

I’ve written a short response to the recent excitement about claims that ancient camels have disproved the Bible. It’s specifically in response to Sam de Brito’s article in the weekend’s Sydney Morning Herald. You can read my response at ABC’s Religion and Ethics site.

camel1

View original post