When it comes to science and Christian faith several outstanding books have appeared this year.

My personal favorite is Andy Walsh’s Faith Across the Multiverse. In this book Walsh mixes fiction (usually science fiction of a sort), math, science, and the bible to explore our understanding of the Christian faith and the ways it can be made to live in our times. I’ve been slowly working through it and will continue.  This is a good book for the science student, engineer or other interested Christian. It also provides insight into the coherence between modern science and Christian faith and may be useful to any one interested in evangelism today. This is for the science geeks among us (and I put myself in that category).

Speaking of evangelism … Mere Science and Christian Faith by Greg Cootsona came out of his experience working with emerging adults that questions surrounding science and Christian faith are often in play, either overtly – leading to explicit conflict and questions, or under the surface. His book is aimed at pastors and ministry leaders as well as 18-30 year-old emerging adults. It is designed to help people think through the issues involved and to develop the tools for interaction and engagement as new challenges arise.

If social science is more your bent … Elaine Howard Ecklund and Christopher P. Scheitle, Religion vs. Science: What Religious People Really Think, explore the myth and reality in religious views of science. Religious people do like science and the benefits it offers, but the myth of conflict is reinforced by some elements of reality. Ecklund and and Scheitle studied the views of religious Americans on creation, climate change, environmentalism, and more.

Finally, Denis Alexander, molecular biologist, former chair of the Molecular Immunology Programme at the Babraham Institute in Cambridge and emeritus director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, has recently published Is There Purpose in Biology? The Cost of Existence and the God of Love. This is an excellent overview of the evidence for evolution and the relationship between this evidence and a purposeful trajectory for the world. There is room for purpose in biology.

Are there any books that you would add to the list?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Ten years ago, when I first started writing on science and faith, Intelligent Design was a hot topic. It was in the news and high on the agenda for many in my local church. Today it has slid into the background, occasionally mentioned, but there are often other fish to fry. Greg Cootsona devotes a case study in his recent book (Mere Science and Christian Faith: Bridging the Divide with Emerging Adults) to the topic of intelligent design but not more than this because it is not one of the major issues for the emerging adults in his target audience.

The discussion of Intelligent Design focus on philosophy and worldview rather than science. Several years ago I read a book, Intelligent Design Uncensored by William Dembski and Jonathan Witt. The one clear message from the book was that the motivation for Intelligent Design is not scientific, it is philosophical and theological. The opponent is philosophical naturalism. At the end of the book, summing up the arguments, Dembski and Witt write:

This book began with a question: Are the things of nature the product of mindless forces alone, or did creative reason play a role? The question is fundamental because so much hinges on it. Are humans worthy of dignity? Are they endowed with certain unalienable rights? If humans are the mindless accident of blind nature, entering and exiting the cosmic stage without audience, in a universe without plan or purpose, what right do we have to puff ourselves up and talk of human rights and human dignity, of meaning or value or love? In such a cosmos, love is but a function of the glands, honor and loyalty nothing more than instincts programmed into us by a blind process of random genetic variation and natural selection. Such a cosmos is ultimately meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

At the heart of this book is a conviction rooted in reason and evidence: the evidence of nature points away from such a pointless universe and toward a universe charged with the grandeur of a design most remarkable. (pp 153-154).

This is a sentiment with which I agree. I am a Christian because there is evidence within creation for a creator. The heavens declare the glory of God. The intricacy of a biological cell and the formation of a child likewise declare the glory of God.

The Intelligent Design movement pushed beyond this sense of awe and wonder declaring the glory of God to propose design as a scientific observable. Greg Cootsona notes that “[ID] asserts a specific mechanism that is detectable and through which certain handiwork can be proven.” (p. 102) He suggests several weaknesses in ID as a search from proof of a designer. Theologically it overlooks the majority of God’s creative power which occurs through secondary, intermediate, and natural causes. We don’t really gain anything by placing a premium on the presence of “gaps” where ‘natural’ explanations fail and thus the designer (God) shines through. “[W]e are designed in a sense for empathy, morality, and relationships. A statement about design cannot be tied with mathematical complexity or statistical improbability.” (p. 103)

Greg suggests three action steps when it comes to Intelligent Design (quoted from p. 103):

• Remember that though all Christians believe that God is an intelligent designer, not all subscribe to the particular paradigm of Intelligent Design.

This is an important point. our belief in God as an intelligent designer is not based on scientific evidence for design. It is based on self revelation, the relationship of God with his creation, testified to in experience, the church and in Scripture.

• ID has not been sustained scientifically. So be careful of promoting it. … At the same time it is worthwhile to engage those thinkers who are convinced by ID and find out their reasons why.

We do harm when promoting questionable science and also by shutting down comment without engaging the ideas. Michael Behe’s ideas on irreducible complexity are not holding up to examination – but the engagement has been profitable in a number of ways. It has also been valuable to wrestle with the philosophical and theological questions that have been raised.

• We need to be careful of seeking more from the book of nature than it offers. As far as the sciences can tell us, there is no empirically detectable proof for God’s creation or existence.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. It simply isn’t a question amenable to these methods of investigation and reasoning.

Is Intelligent Design still a question in your churches?

In what ways?

If you wish to contact me directly, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

The next chapter of Greg Cootsona’s new book (Mere Science and Christian Faith: Bridging the Divide with Emerging Adults) broaches the subject of Adam and Eve. Were Adam and Eve historical individuals, the progenitors of the entire human race. This is probably the single most contentious question within the church when it comes to mainstream science and Christian faith. It is also a question where dogmatic pronouncements can sometimes close the door for evangelism. This is particularly true among scientifically inclined emerging adults – those in Greg’s primary target audience.

Greg outlines three approaches to the question of Adam and Eve.

(1) A historical couple living something like 6000 years ago (perhaps a little longer) specially created by God from the dust or clay of the earth. This approach has a long history in the church, but runs seriously afoul of mainstream science on many levels and, in fact, raises a few biblical conundrums as well – most significantly the question of wives for Cain and Seth and the population that Cain (Adam’s firstborn) feared. Greg is convinced that this option isn’t true.

(3) At the other end of the spectrum we have the suggestion that Adam and Eve are paradigmatic of the human condition. In the Problem of Pain CS Lewis outlined such a scenario. The reality of a “fall” of some sort is maintained as is a God implanted divine image, but the story of Adam and Eve relates this event, not the story of two unique (and sole) persons. There is some biblical support for this approach in the form of the story of Adam and Eve. Most significantly, in the early parts of the story adam is not a proper name, but “the man” or “the earthling”.  His wife is named “life.” These names are consistent with a paradigmatic, typological, and/or archetypal view of Adam and Eve.

(2) Between the two positions above we have a range of views that maintain Adam and Eve as historical individuals while realizing that the issues raised by biblical evidence and mainstream science must also be taken into account. John Walton, Tim Keller, NT Wright, C. John Collins, Derek Kidner, John Stott, and many others fall (or fell) into this camp.

Greg points to his friend Gary Fugle (Laying Down Arms to Heal the Creation-Evolution Divide, an excellent book I blogged through several years back) to summarize two possible scenarios for a historical pair: “Adam was singly taken aside by God from physically evolved humans and the image was divinely imparted to him”  or God “revealed himself in a special way to two individuals or a group of humans and this knowledge of God spread outward to other people who would hear.” (p. 89)  Derek Kidner and John Stott (in his Romans commentary, referring back to Kidner’s Genesis commentary) suggest a federal headship of Adam. Others have looked at the election of Israel and suggested that Adam and Eve could have been selected as priests, representatives, before God.

Position (2) in all its variants leads to the observation that there is a picking and choosing of elements to be taken literally – making those elements fit within an overall scenario. This is a real question. Greg ends … “as a pastor commented in one of the monthly science and religion meetings I host, “Why interpret some components of Genesis 1-3 literally but not others?” (p. 89)

It is not entirely clear where Greg lands in the range of positions (2) and (3) – but some things are clear. We have to take Paul seriously, especially Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. I think he is giving part of his view when he notes “Adam and Eve’s fall initiated a cosmic change. It defines an old age or a world that is passing away (1 Corinthians 7:31). With Christ a new world (or age) has begun. Christians from Paul’s time until today are caught between these two worlds, between their power.” (p. 91)

Let’s Keep Our Eyes on Jesus. The key idea in Paul is not Adam, it is Christ. “Christ is the focus of Paul’s letters – and indeed the whole New Testament – not Adam.“(p. 92)  How do we decide within the spectrum of views on Adam? “To answer that last question, let me repeat: the center of our faith is Christ, not Adam.” (p. 93) and then “as Christians we believe that redemption comes through the grace of Jesus Christ, received by faith. This is the universal answer for the universality of sin.” (p. 94) In the early church (second and third centuries) the origin of sin was not a particularly significant question, redemption through Christ was. If we keep our focus on Christ we realize that the question of Adam is a secondary issue. Although it may be an important question, it is a debate among orthodox Christians not a marker of heresy.

Greg concludes the chapter with five reflections on biblical interpretation – ones to apply when it comes to the question of Adam and to many other issues. (pp. 96-98)

(1) We hold to the Bible because there we find relationship with God through Jesus Christ. This is the most important of the five. Our faith is based on relationship and the foundation is God not Scripture. However, important Scripture is as a lamp to our feet and light to our path it is not the foundation or path itself.

(2) Although we seek integration, we need to interpret Scripture with a sufficient dose of independence between science and faith when necessary. “When Psalms 8 and 19 lead us to consider the heavens and the glory of humankind, they don’t tell us how to use a telescope, interpret the mathematics of physics or understand comparative anatomy. These are all human endeavors complementary to the study of Scripture.” (p. 97)

(3) The interests of the interpreter are critical to the task of interpretation. This doesn’t mean that we can shape the Scripture to fit preference – but that different perspectives will highlight different features.

(4) Science is not the sole arbiter of truth.

(5) Our biblical interpretation is about learning to live within the narrative of the Scripture. “This is letting God’s story become our story.” (p. 98) This really couples back to the first principle above. We hold to the Bible to find relationship, we look to the Bible to let God’s story become ours, and  we keep our eyes on Jesus as the center of our faith and the pinnacle of God’s story in this world even as we look to the age to come.

The question of Adam is a significant one. It is worth much thought and discussion. No, there is not a neat solution at this time. However, Adam is not the center of our faith. We should not allow this debate and discussion to alienate fellow believers or non-Christians who may be otherwise open to consideration of the gospel.

Thoughts?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Is the universe fine-tuned, designed as it were, for our existence?

One of the key doctrines of the Christian faith is also the opening line of the Apostles Creed. “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.” Or the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.”  God is the creator of everything that exists. Even time – defined by the material universe – is part of creation.

Does the universe contain evidence of design, evidence of the Creator? Greg Cootsona (Mere Science and Christian Faith) uses fine-tuning and the big bang to explore the relationship between science and Christian faith. Most importantly: should we expect science to prove the existence of God?

The Big Bang. The consensus view until rather recently supported an eternal static universe defined by regular cycles of time. Modern cosmology, i.e. big bang theory, points to a beginning before which the universe as we know it did not exist. Stephen Hawking, well known and accomplished physicist and cosmologist at the University of Cambridge, who died yesterday at the age of 76, put it like this (source):

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there’s no way one could measure what happened at them. … the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

Stephen Hawking made substantial contributions to our understanding of the universe. His book A Brief History of Time is one I thoroughly enjoyed when it first came out and still recommend. The Big Bang is consistent with the Christian doctrine of creation – time and space have a beginning. The beginning was long ago – 13.8 billion years – but it was a real beginning. Greg warns, however, that we shouldn’t make too much of this agreement. First, while it is clear that the universe is ancient and changing with time, it is possible that some future revision in our understanding of cosmology will point to a universe without a beginning. We could exist in one cycle of a periodic process. Second, a beginning is not in and of itself proof for a creator. If there is no God or creator then the beginning is  simply a consequence of the laws of physics intrinsic to the universe, as Stephen Hawking believed.  The big bang may bolster the faith of the faithful, but it is not likely to convince a skeptic of the truth of the Christian story.

What about fine-tuning? Greg supplies a definition of cosmic fine-tuning from Wikipedia (source):

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range of values, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.

The fine-tuning of the universe is often taken as another argument for the existence of a creator (i.e. God).  This, too, is a flawed argument. The fine-tuning of the universe is consistent with the Christian faith. We certainly expect that God, maker of heaven and earth, would have designed his creation as one hospitable for his purposes and thus for humankind. Greg puts it like this:

But is it a proof for God? Here’s where it’s easy to overstate the case. Some present the multiverse theory as a rejoinder-in other words, there have been innumerable attempts at other universes that simply failed. But since most of my colleagues in science tell me this theory is metaphysical speculation because it is in principle inaccessible to our scientific verification, I turn to philosophy for the strongest argument against fine-tuning as a p roof for God’s creation: it’s a tautology. Simply put, we are here in this particular universe. Whether its existence is perfectly calibrated or not, it’s the only universe we’ve got. It’s the only universe we know. In a sense, that makes the probability of its existence one hundred percent. …

This is not a deductive proof for God that leaves no room for disagreement. Instead it’s a suppositional argument that offers confirmation for the judgment that this universe has design and that design is confirmed, to some degree, by the incredible particularity of its parameters. If we suppose there to be a God who desired the universe, we should expect that this universe would have evidences of the design. The fine-tuning of various physical constants is therefore consistent with God’s design. Therefore it is reasonable to assert that God exists. (p. 79)

The bottom line is that we should be careful and open-handed in our integration of science and Christian faith. Although we affirm that God as creator is revealed in his creation, we need to be cautious in our conclusions. Greg provides four guidelines that I paraphrase and interpret from my perspective here.

• Scripture and nature give complementary perspectives on the nature of God. Greg notes that they are “not identical.” We shouldn’t be looking at nature to reveal much of the personal, relational nature of God or to Scripture to inform our scientific study of nature.
• Science is a changing discipline. Don’t make too much of an apparent agreement (e.g. the big bang) but don’t ignore the agreements and consistencies either.
• Keep up with developments so you don’t base your arguments on disputed ideas or conclusions that have been re-evaluated and revised in light of new evidence.
• Don’t jump on every new band wagon in science. Let the field mature before worrying much about it.

What do you see as the relationship between science and Christian faith?

What does it mean to integrate these two perspectives?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

After an introduction and a brief discussion of emerging adulthood, Greg Cootsona, Mere Science and Christian Faith, digs into hermeneutics – the principles of interpretation that shape the way we read scripture, including the creation passages. It is unfortunate that some Christians and atheists find common ground on the issue of interpretation. Either a favored interpretation is true, or scripture is false and Christianity based on a misguided myth. Christianity is said to stand or fall with such ideas as a young earth, Job and Jonah as history, and a global flood.

Closer to the truth: the Scriptures are a collection of sophisticated and deep writings assembled for a purpose, to lead us to God and to tell his story. Greg quotes the statement put forth by Fuller Seminary “All the books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, are the written word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” (p. 62). He also points out that the early church creeds say nothing about Scripture, although the church fathers clearly read and valued Scripture as authoritative, shaping both faith and practice. Consistent with the echoes of Mere Christianity in Greg’s book, he also notes that C.S. Lewis “made it clear that he disagreed with inerrancy, which he called “Fundamentalist,” and didn’t concern himself with whether the Bible contained errors or not. He simply believed it was authoritative, read it daily, and sought to live out its message.”  (p. 62)

How should we approach Scripture? Greg outlines five key principles to direct interpretation. (pp. 71-73)

(1) “Whatever word we use to describe our commitment to the truth and power of Scripture-whether inerrant, infallible, or anything else-we’re committed to the ultimate authority (or primacy) of Scripture and not to our interpretation of it.“

(2) “Along with Old Testament scholar John Walton, we need to affirm that although the Bible can speak to us, it wasn’t written for us. We are overhearing a conversation that originally took place with another audience. That means we need to take time to learn about the ancient context in which God spoke in Scripture and then carefully seek to apply that to the twenty-first century. … The Bible is written in the thought forms of its day.“

(3) “We can’t simply hope to apply a passage directly to our context without taking in the original setting. So learning the historical, social, and scientific context of the passage can keep us from a myriad of interpretive sins. In other words, we have to work hard to find what’s in the passage and not what we’d like to find. We need to avoid making Scripture a mirror of our own faces and convictions.“

(4) “The literal interpretation is not the only one.” Some passages were not intended to be interpreted literally. The Scriptures use many forms and genres including history, parable, and story, poetry and prose, liturgical and provocative rhetoric. Even historical passages, while intending to relate historical events, use forms and structures common in the ancient world rather than the modern ‘scientific’ approach. Other passages may refer to ideas common in the ancient Near East, but out of favor today (e.g. the vault above the earth). In taking Scripture as authoritative we should commit to searching out the form and context of the text.

(5) “Go for the leaner, more humble interpretation. And when we don’t know, it’s okay to say that too.” (This he learned from Earl Palmer at First Presbyterian Church Berkeley.)

What would you add to Greg’s list? What might you change?

What does it mean to respect the authority of Scripture?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Early Isaiah 1-12 contains three significant passages read by the apostles, the evangelists, and the early church as messianic prophecies fulfilled in Jesus. These passages vary in their context in Isaiah. For Isaiah 7:14-16 it is clear in context that the prophet had a contemporary in mind, likely Hezekiah, rather than a future messiah. In retrospect it was applied to Jesus, the prophet proclaimed more than he knew. In 9:6-7 it appears that there is both a contemporary subject in mind as well as space for an eschatological fulfillment. No mere human ruler could live up to the hyperbolic language here.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this.

Isaiah 11 takes us even more clearly into this eschatological perspective.

A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord—and he will delight in the fear of the Lord. … They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. 11:1-3, 9

Ben Witherington III (Isaiah Old and New: Exegesis, Intertexutality, and Hermeneutics) notes that Isaiah 11 is more clearly prophetic pointing to some future event … “the lack of specificity is intentional, as this is more of an eschatological (and messianic) oracle.“

[Isaiah 11] serves as a fitting climax to the oracles in Isaiah 6-11, bringing out the further promise of the coming king, but with a correction. G0d must start over with the stump of Jesse, because the Davidic line will fall into darkness, into chaos, into self destruction and exile. The Davidic dynasty will be cut down to a mere stump, but God can bring new life even from an apparently dead stump. (p. 104)

There is judgment and hope in the words recorded by Isaiah. Everything will be put right.

The oracles of the historical Isaiah found in Isaiah 7-12 regularly and repeatedly refer to the coming of a human king to deal with the malaise recounted in Isaiah 1-6. … There can be little doubt that Isaiah in Isaiah 7 and to some extent in Isaiah 9, has in mind a king who would arise in his own era, perhaps Hezekiah, and set various things right by ruling wisely and justly. But already in Isaiah 7, and even more in Isaiah 9, and finally very clearly in Isaiah 11 our prophets speaks not only of the near horizon but of a more distant one where an ideal or eschatological ruler with divine attributes and the very character of Yahweh will come and set things right once and for all. The interim near horizon solutions are presented only as a foreshadowing and preview of coming attractions, and not just by the later NT writers, but already by Isaiah himself. (p. 111)

Witherington argues (convincingly) that the either-or mentality, either Isaiah was referring to a contemporary event or he was pointing to the distant future, is the wrong way to pose the question. Clearly there is an immediate context at play and a contemporary king in view in some cases – but there is also a measure of forward looking to the time when God will rule with his Spirit resting on a branch from the stump of Jesse. The historical Isaiah knew that no contemporary king could fulfill the role outlined in Isaiah 11.

The New Testament authors used the book of Isaiah in a variety of ways … as “a resource, a font of images and ideas,” a transference of ideas about Yahweh to Jesus, as well as “homiletical use … for purposes other than those Isaiah had.” (p. 114) Isaiah was a part of the common consciousness and it was used in this manner. However, in the case of these three passages in particular (Isaiah 7, 9, 11) the early church saw Jesus clearly standing as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s vision – especially as the coming ruler of Isaiah 11.

Does the either-or mentality affect your reading of Isaiah?

What does it mean to read Jesus as the fulfillment of these three Isaianic oracles?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

The links to books above above are paid links. Go with this one if you prefer: Isaiah Old and New: Exegesis, Intertexutality, and Hermeneutics.

There are a number of places in the Bible where apparently contradictory accounts are recorded. The crucifixion accounts in John (on Passover day when the lambs were sacrificed) and the Synoptics (the day after the Passover meal), the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, the withering fig tree in Matthew 21 and Mark 11,  the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, Chronicles compared with Samuel-Kings, and this is only touches on the issues. In the face of these issues we are left with four choices (1) ignore them, (2) harmonize them, (3) dismiss the Bible as a merely human ancient book, or (4) face the differences, explore the ancient Near Eastern conventions at play in the text, and look for the intended message of the text.

It is better to face the differences. Many attempts at harmonization become rather convoluted and unpersuasive. The cock crowed six times … for example (The Battle for the Bible) … inventing a scenario not recorded in any Gospel to preserve a specific vision of the nature of Scripture.

Let the Bible be the Bible and study it for the intended message.

This extends to the way dates and times are used in the Gospels and throughout Scripture. Michael LeFebvre, The Liturgy of Creation, writes:

It is better to face the differences and consider why the authors used their descriptive latitude to record the events as they did. The journalistic way we expect timestamps to function today is not a reliable standard by which to assess timestamps in the Bible. Furthermore, imposing anachronistic expectations about calendars could hinder our full appreciation of a biblical author’s reason for drawing our particular date alignments. (p. 5)

Although not an internal inconsistency, many Christians today invent rather incredible scenarios unrecorded in Scripture or elsewhere to preserve a young earth view consistent with their understanding of Genesis. Observations of the natural world (creation) are harmonized with the favored interpretation of Scripture, (e.g. rapid post flood differentiation in a few hundred years to account for the present diversity of life). While these constructions are comforting to some, many of us find them decidedly unpersuasive. They can be a stumbling block to faith for those both outside and inside the church. If they are unnecessary (as I believe), this is rather unfortunate.  But are they unnecessary?

Rather than fight to protect a particular vision of Scripture, in The Liturgy of Creation Michael LeFebvre focuses on the way dates and calendars are used in the Pentateuch. This leads, he argues, to a better understanding of the form and message of Genesis 1.

I want to propose in this book that the Genesis 1:1-2:3 creation week is most fruitfully read as a “calendar narrative.” It is a special kind of historical narrative in which historical events are given the dates of a festival observance (sabbath observance in the case of the creation week), without regard for the timing of the original occurrence.  To establish this argument, it will be important to examine how the Pentateuch as a whole uses dates in other calendar narratives. (p. 6)

And later:

I want to show in this book that the creation week was designed as a guide for faithful work and sabbath worship, and that we rob the text of its intended force when we instead deploy it in disputes about physics, cosmology, and natural history. (p. 7)

We honor Scripture as the word of God when we seek to understand the intended message. This will become clearer when we understand the conventions behind the construction of the text. LeFebvre’s ideas are worth careful consideration – as we dig into them in the upcoming posts.

Is the date discrepancy between the crucifixion in John and the Synoptics a problem to be solved?

How should we approach such contradictions?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

We will dig into more of LeFebvre’s book over the coming months. Join us if you’d like.

(The links above are paid referrals – try this one if you prefer: The Liturgy of Creation.)