Something must be eternal

A simple reflection tells us that something must be eternal.  After all, if you start with nothing, you’ll always end up with nothing.  But we ended up with something, which means we must have started with something.  Put another way, since something exists now something must have always existed.  There could never be a time when absolutely nothing existed.  Something must be eternal, but what is that something?

There are good scientific and philosophical reasons to conclude that physical reality has not always existed, so physical reality can’t be the eternal something.  Since things which begin to exist must be caused to exist by something else, physical reality had to be caused by something else, and perhaps the cause of the physical world is the eternal something we are looking for.  How would we know?

 

Don’t turn Adam and Eve into a society just yet: Evaluating the science behind the original human population size

Could the human population have originated from two people? Many say science has proven this to be impossible and are reinterpreting the Biblical narrative to fit the current scientific thinking.  In this article, Fuz Rana evaluates the science behind the claims regarding original human population sizes. He notes that it is based on mathematical modeling rather than empirical data, and those mathematical models have failed verification in each case we have been able to test them.  At the very least this ought to give Christians pause before reinterpreting the Bible to fit the latest scientific thinking.  It would be foolish to abandon the historicity of a primordial pair of humans based on scientific reasoning that has inaccurately “predicted” the original population sizes of animals for which we know the original populations.  If the mathematics are too idealized for real-life biology, then Christians should not feel the pressure to “revise” our theology.

 

What I’ve Been Reading: The Resurrection of Jesus

Michael Licona’s magnum opus on the resurrection, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, is a must read for those who are interested in the historical evidence for the resurrection.  It has some overlap with other great works on the resurrection such as N. T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God, but it is distinct in that it begins with an examination of history and method (philosophy of history) before examining the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and drawing any conclusions.  Licona explores the nature of historical knowledge (what can be known) and historical methodology.  He even assesses the source material (canonical as well as non-canonical material) to determine each source’s value for the investigation.  Finally, he gets to the heart of the matter by determining the historical facts, and then assessing competing hypotheses to determine the best explanation.  All 600+ pages are worth your attention!

 

What I’ve Been Reading: The Story of Reality

I recently finished reading Greg Koukl’s new book, The Story of Reality.  In fact, I read it twice – and I rarely read a book more than once.  Koukl contends that while most Christians know most of the bits and pieces of the Christian worldview, few know how to put those pieces together in a coherent fashion to form a truly Christian worldview.  They may have a lot of knowledge about the Bible’s contents (micro-level understanding), but few understand the overarching Biblical storyline (macro-level understanding).  The Story of Reality sets out to tell that story, breaking it up into five major areas: God, man, Jesus, cross, and final resurrection.

 

Darwin’s mechanism works, but not in the way Darwin imagined

When it comes to neo-Darwinian evolution, the question isn’t whether Darwin’s proposed mechanism of biological change is true – we know it is because we observe it in nature.  The question is whether it can explain what Darwin thought it explained: the diversity of life.

While the process of natural selection working on random mutations (NS+RM) is too slow to observe in mammals, we can observe the equivalent of millions of years of mammalian evolution in mere decades using microbial life and viruses.  Experimental data over the last ~20 years has shown that while natural selection working on random mutations does produce change and variation within microbial species, it does not create new species.^[1]

 

Straight Outta Context #22 – Eph 5:21 – “submitting to one another”

“…submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21)

This verse is often invoked in the context of the marital relationship to teach against male headship.  Rather than the wife submitting to the man, it is claimed that Paul argued for mutual submission: the wife should submit to her husband, but the husband should also submit to his wife.  This principle is extended beyond the marriage relationship as well to include all Christians.  Each Christian ought to submit themselves to each other.

Is that the point of this passage? Is Paul teaching that we should always yield our will to someone else’s will?  I think not.  While a look at the context will prove this to be so, common sense alone rules this interpretation out.  Consider the following:

 

Straight Outta Context #21 – Prov 29:18 – “where there is no vision the people perish”

For many years this proverb has been misinterpreted, probably because the KJV translates it “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” What we typically hear preached from this verse is that a church must have a long-term goal and plan if they wish to thrive rather than perish. That may be good advice, but that’s not the meaning of this proverb.

The word vision does not refer to one’s ability to formulate future goals and plans, but is a synonym for the prophetic word which comes from God’s prophets.

“Perish” has also been misunderstood.  It’s not referring to churches that will cease to exist if they don’t have a vision, or to the spiritual perishing of unbelievers who will perish in hell if the church does not get a vision for the lost.  The word means “to cast off all restraint.”  The point of the Proverb, then, is that when there is no prophetic word from God to guide the people, they will cast off all moral restraint and follow their own evil devices.

Keep it in context….