During a discussion on creation, one of the speakers referenced a prominent scientist who noted that the "book of nature" is like the 67th book of the Bible. I have heard that before, but it had not registered with me. Last night, when I heard it my red flags perked up, along with several other mixed metaphors.
Time after time in both the New and Old Testaments we are cautioned not to add to God's Word. Now, does considering nature to be another book of the Bible rise to the level of "adding" to the Word? There are two ways to apply and interpret the message of nature. If we use the information we receive from nature to help understand the 66, it will be an acceptable reading.
However, if the "nature information" is used to reinterpret what the Bible says, and to even revise it, we are on dangerous territory. One example is the "billions of years old" interpretation of the age of the earth. By determining that long periods of time must be inserted into the Scripture account of creation, the "interpreter" is actually rewriting the text. One problem with this is purely practical. Dates and times of past events vary with additional "discoveries" or understandings, so the changed text must be changed again.
"Old ages" of the earth used to bother me. As I learned more about science, I discovered that the dating techniques involve preconceived notions or presumptions. These precursors have a major effect on the resulting conclusion. And there are scientifically reliable interpretations that conclude we inhabit a young earth. Consequently I can accept young earth analysis which seems to confirm and conform to the Scripture text. I continually discover more textual interpretations that persist in interpreting the six days as literal 24 hour days. (Bible Words.)
One critique claims that the first chapters of Genesis are figurative, to give us an overview of God's work, but not a specific play by play or day by day account of activities. The stories of Adam and Eve are merely figurative or mythical and are given to overview God's ultimate actions.
One example is the story about Eve and the serpent. It is just a figurative representation of the origin of sin and evil. If it is not literal, we are faced with, to my mind, a very uncomfortable result. Follow my thinking. Genesis 3:15 presents the ultimate solution for sin.
And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."
The Lord is addressing Satan and announces that there will be "warfare" between Eve and Satan and her offspring and Satan's "seed" or followers. This announces the initial glimpse of the crucifixion. The Seed of the woman will crush Satan's head. This represents a mortal and eternal defeat. Bruising the heel represents a minor and recoverable wound. Jesus did die, but the death only lasted for three days.
So if the story in Genesis 3 is only figurative, does that mean that the prophesy of the crucifixion and resurrection is merely a figurative story? No. Almost everyone agrees and accepts the literal death and resurrection. The parallel story in Genesis 3 must also be a literal story.
Back to our question. Does nature really show us about God? Absolutely. Romans 1 says that men can know about God in nature.
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Notice what they can see. "His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature," are shown, which proves the existence of God. It does not tell about His love and grace and specifically how to know him.
If we try to learn about God from nature alone, we are doomed to have an incomplete understanding. There is a sign on the Interstate just outside of Smyrna, that says "Nashville 23 miles." That sign tells us where Nashville is, 23 miles down the road. It also tells us how far it is: 23 miles.
The sign does not tell us how long Nashville has been there. "Nashville 23 miles." It will not tell me how big it is or how it was built. "Nashville 23 miles." It will not even tell us how it is governed. "Nashville 23 miles." If I go up to it and ask any questions, the sign will answer, "Nashville 23 miles." That is all it will ever tell me.
In the same way, nature tells us that there is a God. It does not tell us how He made the world. It does not tell us how to get to Him or what He is like, or any other crucial information that we need to live forever with Him. To learn these life changing facts, we have to turn to the Scripture. There is not a substitute or even a complement. The Bible alone gives us this. Our understanding of "nature" may or may not confirm what the Bible says. If we find a conflict, it must be with our understanding of nature and not what the Bible says.
Our real question is not whether the earth is young or old. We must find the message that God has given us and respond to it. If we perceive any discrepancy between the Scripture and any other source of data the immediate reaction must be to re-examine the data. If perchance our understanding of Scripture is faulty, that will become clear. BUT, and I emphasize, but, we are never allowed to revise Scripture.
Believe it or not, I have misunderstood some aspects of Scripture. My faulty interpretation was exposed by other Scripture. Only cults change the Scripture to match their interpretation. The result of such effrontery is not good. Find your mistake. YOUR mistake. Scripture is never wrong.
One simple illustration will close our discussion. I took computer programing in college. One of the questions we asked the instructor was what to do about times the computer made a mistake.
He responded, "Apart from a major malfunction, and you will know when that happens, the computer will never make a mistake. It only does what you tell it to do. So if it does something that you do not expect, it is not a ‘computer mistake.' It is a computer programmer mistake. When you find your mistake, it will do what you want it to do."
There are no mistakes in Scripture. There are "programmer" mistakes and when we find them, we will have the ultimate solution that we seek. "Old earth or young earth" is only important in light of what it means to salvation. I am not basing my eternal existence on old or young earth conclusions. If neither one of them correlates with what the Bible says, I reject them both. It is not an intellectual exercise. It is a spiritual battle.
Conversely, if I reject what He clearly has told us, am I really a believer in anything else He says. This is my "test." I do not and will not apply that to anyone else. If they choose to reject whatever He says, He has already told us the result. "He who has the Son has life. He who does not have the Son does not have life." (John 3:36)
Choose life.
No comments:
Post a Comment