Religion
How do animals and women fit in? Why do evil and viruses exist?
How big was the flood and why doesn't God intervene?
What is the Trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? Does purgatory exist?
No further word from God? Only containing God's words? What about the errors?
Can it have different meanings? May a bible story be legend? Help from outside the bible...?
How dangerous is wealth? What about forgiving the unrepentant? Can euthanasia be Christian? What makes a church a sect?
Is Jesus the one to follow? Did Jesus rise bodily? Jesus and the Holy Spirit? How is Christ coming back? A synthesis of traditions?
Am I a real disciple of Jesus? What do I do when I am tempted? Why should Christians suffer? Why are other Christians a problem?
The last section of Richard Bewes' book The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions takes a different turn. Bewes aims to explain the fifty most difficult passages within the bible. Likewise, to my previous articles, I'll be offering my views on some of these passages.
1. Genesis 1 - Six 'days' of creation? Are we now to understand the days of Creation in the light of scientific advance?
One of the most controversial facets of Christianity is how the universe began. Did God create it? Or was it the Big Bang? Is there a way to rationalise one by the other?
Richard Bewes argues that you cannot balance the two against each other. He believes that this is because of the fluid nature of science. Science is built on cumulative knowledge with old theories constantly being disproved and replaced by older ones. In contrast, the biblical account of Creation has remained the same for millennia. "Millions of modern readers accept and are inspired by Genesis 1 just as much as the ancient peoples were." Bewes concludes by asserting that if we try to match up creationism with scientific theory, then we would run into trouble, as science, unlike Genesis, would eventually move on.
I agree with Bewes that science is fluid. It is indeed built on ever-changing research. However, there are scientific paradigms. There are theories and laws, which cannot be questioned. Like gravity. Like Heliocentricism. Like natural selection. Like the earth being spherical. If you question these ideas, then you'll be ridiculed and stigmatised, just like the Flat Earth society. While I can understand why Bewes argues you can't correlate Creationism and scientific advice, I don't believe or agree with it. Not all of science is fluid.
2. Genesis 2:7 - Can Evolution be accommodated? 'The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being.' Could this imply an evolutionary process?
In relation to religion, Evolution is just as controversial as Creationism. Did we evolve from single-celled beings or did God create us?
According to Richard Bewes, Genesis 2:7 doesn't necessarily disallow evolution. Rather it argues that it has to be allowed:
"to make its own point, namely, that - in physical terms - we derive from the very materials that make up this earth and its contents. It needs to be balanced by Genesis 1:27 that tells us of the image of God in which we have been made. The two statements complement each other, and stand forever, irrespective of how evolutionary theories themselves may develop. [...] What unites us, of course, is our common belief in an original creation, and the truth that the whole human race comes from single stock (Acts 17:26) Our past mistake has been in spending fruitless hour defending a position, rather than proclaiming the massive truth - that men and women are not simply collections of biochemical reactions. We have been brought into this world as god-like beings - made for eternal fellowship with the Creator!"
I'm not sure how much I subscribe to Bewes' argument. To me, it sounds like he is dancing around the question, rather than answering it directly. He's saying that Evolution can and cannot be accommodated without coming down on either side of the argument. Rather, he concentrates on a bigger philosophical issue. It isn't how we exist that's important, it's why we exist. We're more than just atoms and molecules. We're "god-like beings - made for eternal fellowship with the Creator!"
I also don't agree with Bewes. From my understanding of Christianity, human beings can never be "god-like beings." There is only one God, which you should follow. You shouldn't aim to be better than him. You shouldn't aim to be god-like. You can't expect to be god-like. To do so would be assuming you have an authority over him. That you know more than him, which is impossible.
3. Genesis 4:14 - Other populations than Adam's? Cain - on his banishment to be a wanderer on earth, following his murder of Abel - laments, 'whoever finds me will kill me.' Doesn't this indicate other early populations on earth, besides Adam's?
This question addresses a major concern that I have always had with Creationism. If Adam and Eve were the first and only human beings, how did they reproduce enough to become 8 billion people? The bible itself doesn't explain it. Instead, there's a long genealogy of xx begetting xx.
This issue is addressed in more detail within the next question, but for now, Bewes offers a variety of timid explanations, but nothing really definitive. Firstly, he argues that Cain's killers could be wild animals instead of people. He also asserts that maybe Adam and Eve weren't necessarily the first human beings, but the first of "the highest type of the human race, and had been preceded by the production of inferior races, now widely scattered." Bewes also argues that these killers could be referring to future populations.
However, Bewes' final and "most natural explanation" is that "Cain's fears were groundless." From his perspective, he couldn't have known whether anybody else existed, other than Adam and his family. He couldn't have known whether there were other people around who could have attacked him. "Thus the sign and promise that God gives Cain is a gracious accommodation of the fugitive in his ignorant fears."
I'm not too convinced by these arguments. Wild animals makes sense, but the second one doesn't. I think it contradicts a major part of Genesis. I have always been taught that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. There wasn't any inferior humans before them. If there were, this would indicate major problems within the teachings of Genesis. Furthermore, Richard Bewes' description of
"Adam's creation [being] not that of Genesis 1:27, but of the highest type of the human race, and [having] being preceded by the production of inferior races, now widely scattered,"
sounds dangerously close to evolution. Adam and Eve were the first homosapiens. Everyone else that came before were just neanderthals. As for Bewes' "most natural explanation," this sounds a little too unfounded for me. It sounds like he is basing his ideas on "what if" scenarios, rather than anything tangible. For me, this makes it too difficult to subscribe to.
4. Genesis 4:17 - Who was Cain's wife? With Cain and Abel as the two brothers - and there being no other peoples outside Adam's family - how was it, then, that Cain, on being banished to the land of Nod, finds a wife there? Who was she?
As we've already discussed, I have always been sceptical about this section of the bible. Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel are the only humans. Who did Cain reproduce with? The bible doesn't explain this. He just has a wife out of nowhere. The only logical explanation is that Cain intermarried with another of Adam and Eve's children.
And this is the explanation that Bewes provides. Firstly, he clarifies that Cain did not find a wife in Nod. Rather he had sex with her in Nod. But secondly, he argues that Cain and Abel were only the first children of Adam and Eve. Over their long lives, they had countless other sons and daughters, one of which Cain married "when necessity demanded some intermarrying at a time when the race yet to increase."
Although I can understand this in the short-term, I don't see how it can apply in the long run. This also isn't the only case of incest in the bible. After Lot and his daughters escaped from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, they get him drunk and rape him, to ensure the continuation of their family.
6. Genesis 11:5-7 Does God feel threatened? "If...they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language...' This reads like the panic action of a threatened tyrant, but surely God is not like this?
I can understand where this reader is coming from. The first time I read the bible, I had this perspective of God, as an arrogant, self-obsessed dictator who feeds off validation. However, Bewes argues that while God's actions have been interpreted like this, this is not the truth. Rather his actions are of a parent who wants the best for his child.
The question addresses the Tower of Babylon where the people tried building a tower to reach God in heaven, rather than carrying out his commandments. In punishment, God scatters them and makes me speak all different languages, to prevent them from uniting like this again. According to Bewes, God did this was to prevent an evil person or power to exercise unlimited power without restraint. Although God wants us to work together, if we leave him out of the process, then frustration and ruin will surely ensue.
I agree with Bewes' argument to an extent. I have heard the comparison of God being a parent to a misbehaving child before. All he wants is the best for his child, but he keeps being disobeyed, so he has to punish him to enact his authority. But, I still think God is quite arrogant.
10. Exodus 4:21 - Unfair on Pharoah? I feel sorry for Pharoah, faced by Moses and the plagues of Egypt. Why did God 'harden Pharoah's heart' so that he could not repent?
This is another example of why I find God arrogant. One of Moses' most important missions was freeing the Israelites who had been enslaved by the mighty Pharoah of Egypt. Moses promises plague after plague, if Pharoah doesn't release them. However, Pharoah refuses to do this, because God repeatedly hardens his heart. I have always thought this to be a gross display of power. It's God's way of showing off his omnipotence.
Richard Bewes argues that Pharoah doesn't deserve our pity. Even though, he wanted respite from the plagues, he wasn't prepared to repent. Pharoah is given ten chances to repent, but God knew that he never would. "Every time Pharoah hardened his heart against the revealed truth of God's message, it was a further tightening of the noose upon him."
I don't subscribe to this. To me, it sounds like Bewes is shifting the blame away from God onto Pharoah, forgetting that it was God who hardened his heart in the first place. Look at his wording, Bewes says that it was "every time Pharoah hardened his heart," not God, but Pharoah. Observe Exodus 9:12, where God unleashes the plagues of boils and hail:
"And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharoah, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had spoken unto Moses."
Exodus Chapter 10 begins like this:
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharoah: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him"
During the plague of Locusts, Pharoah says this:
"Then Pharoah called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against you. Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and entreat the LORD your God, that he may take away from me this death only." Exodus 10:16-17
This is God's response:
"But the Lord hardened Pharoah's heart, so he would not let the children of Israel go." Exodus 10:20
As we can see from this scripture, Pharoah is willing to repent, but God hardens his heart. I still don't understand why he does this. I don't understand why God would want his followers suffering in slavery, any longer than necessary. To me, it still seems like a grotesque display of power.
However, I could very well be wrong. If you think I am, then please comment below. Just keep it mature. Keep it respectful. Keep it intelligent.
No comments:
Post a Comment