Evolution states the man came from a common ancestor as monkeys, not that we came from monkeys but great-great-great granddaddy also spawned monkeys. I'm in this evolution class for being a bio major and it's interesting to hear the professor, whom is extremely intelligent, teach evolution as it is fact; however, evolution is just a theory with major missing links. It's a bad misconception that everyone makes when thinking of Darwin who was a religious man but he seemed to forgot that man was created in the image of God. Man, not monkeys. It's funny that many scientists try everything in their power to try and disprove the existence of God; thus, the big bang theory, the start of the universe, and other theories to try and explain life. To study science is to study God's creation and if you try ignore the creator you're going to miss out on some key points in the creation.
For instance, how can the Earth be in such a specific location in the solar system at such a specific angle, in such a specific rotation and revolution(it's orbit around the sun) to support life? How could that be random? It's the only planet, moon, star, etc. that can support life and will ever support life.
Moving on...I watched the Prince of Egypt the other night which is a portrayal of the Moses story; Moses leading the Hebrews out of tyranny and bondage. You know the who plagues and "Let my people Go" thing. We've all heard it and probably have the story memorized: Christian and non-Christian. I was watching the History Channel a few months ago about Moses and the Exodus. They tried to explain, with scientific evidence, the 10 plagues God sent upon Egypt and the classic pillar of fire and the parting of the Red Sea. I was kind of interested to see how they were going to try and pull this off. For example, Water to Blood they said that rare times the Nile soot will appear to be red; blood like......WEAK, not buying it. With the locusts you could explain with science because locusts are insects that move from place to place devouring everything. Famine is also explained by science here. With the Pillar of fire they explained that Moses would light a torch like structure, it was pretty tall, that looked like a pillar of fire and during the day would kind of put it out so it looked like a pillar of smoke. Historically, it was common for generals to lead their armies with such methods which explains the pillar of fire and pillar of smoke described in the Bible. What I really found interesting was that the parting of the sea wasn't really a parting but more like an extremely low tide that exposed a marsh strip to the other shore which would allow passage by foot but not by chariot; thus, when the Egyptians moved in after the Hebrews they got stuck in the marsh and high tide came in and drowned them all.
With these explanations one could argue that God did nothing. I mean, that's what it sounds like when seeing these plagues in scientific explanation. Maybe that was how it really was, I don't know I wasn't there. However, I do believe that God performs miracles and signs and in Exodus it clearly states that He would perform signs and wonders. I sometimes think that we sometimes de-glorify God when trying to explain God and all His wonders. In this case, the History Channel was doing a production that, in my opinion, de-gloried God; taking all the power, the wonder, and majesty of God when explaining these plagues on human terms. God can't be explained completely on human terms; He's too perfect for that. The Bible states that He brought upon the plagues, the signs, the wonders, the sea parted with a wall of water on the left and right, and a pillar of fire to lead them by night and a pillar of smoke to lead them by day. And I believe that. It goes against every single natural law ever developed but God doesn't necessarily follow nature's law does He? He's God. Which I think these explanations seem to degrade that point. That He is God. Which is odd, because He brought upon the plagues in the first place to show the people of Israel and Egypt who He is...God ( Exodus 6:6-7; 7:5). Powerful, perfect, committed, mysterious God. And I just disagree with explanations like these that undermine and degrade that. God is God. There's no avoiding that. So History channel, say it how it is instead of taking God out of the picture.
Thought for future blog, maybe,....notice that God speaks personally to people in the Old Testament and almost doesn't say a word in the New Testament.....more to come on that
3 comments:
"It goes against every single natural law ever developed but God doesn't necessarily follow nature's law does He? He's God."
What you said here reminds me of something I read not long ago in C.S. Lewis' "That Hideous Strength." (the final book in his Space Trilogy)
The setting is a conversation between several people. The one named MacPhee doubts the possibility of anything that contradicts "the laws of nature":
"'All this has the disadvantage of being clean contrary to the observed laws of Nature,' observed MacPhee. The Director smiled without speaking, as a man who refuses to be drawn.
'It is not contrary to the laws of Nature,' said a voice... 'You are quite right. The laws of the universe are never broken. Your mistake is to think that the little regularities we have observed on one planet for a few hundred years are the real unbreakable laws; whereas they are only the remote results which the true laws bring about more often than not; as a kind of accident.'
'Shakespeare never breaks the real laws of poetry,'...'But by following them he breaks every now and then the little regularities which critics mistake for the real laws. Then the little critics call it a "license." But there's nothing licentious about it to Shakespeare.'
'And that,'...'is why nothing in Nature is quite regular. There are always exceptions. A good average uniformity, but not complete.
To comment on my comment, C.S. Lewis would seem to say that there IS natural law that God does follow. Yet our perception of what that natural law is is so limited by our finite perspective. C.S. Lewis said another time, "Five senses; an incurably abstract intellect; a haphazardly selective memory; a set of preconceptions and assumptions so numerous that I can never examine more than minority of them - never become conscious of them all. How much of total reality can such an apparatus let through?" It seems that while we should not doubt what our senses tell us, to believe they tell the whole story about this "natural law" is preposterous.
I see what you're getting at but my point was more along the lines that, instead of trusting what the Bible says, they instead explain it in a way that would "make sense" to everything we currently know about Earth and nature. That's what I meant by putting it Nature's terms: taking what is said in the Bible and explaining it in on a non-miracle, no God involved, kind of way. I've heard the same type of explanations for Jesus' miracles like reviving Lazurus by saying that he in fact was in a coma, maybe that was the truth i personally don't believe that because that kind of explanation takes away the power of Jesus, that He revived him from death, that it was Jesus that physically brought him back to life, a miracle, even though nature tells us that is impossible.
Post a Comment