I was raised non religious, I remember when really young believing in some kind of a god, and saying some prayers with my grandma, but i always thought going to church would be a waste of half of a perfectly good day to be outside having fun.
I used to watch movies with charlton hest..er Moses, and jesus and really liked them, and dreamed about what it would like to go back in time to see if the stories treally happened.
But my favorite thing to watch were the science programs on PBS.
I learned about how the creatures would be way different as you went back in time and dreamed about having a time machine and could go back and see dinosaurs and go fishing for all the different kinds of fish through the ages. I didn’t go to college, but I learned enough about evolution to beleive that is the way it happens. I don’t know where I picked up the idea that evolution disproved religion, but I pretty much accepted the idea that we didn’t need a god to explain things now that we have this to explain it. I became more of an agnostic.
Later in lifer, I lost some family and friends to death, and had my own death on my mind. If there is nothing to us beyond biology, we are all doomed to an eternity of meaningless nonexistence! I know non religious people are going to think I am a wimp who just cannot deal with reality, mabye so, but I am just being honest, that is what got me seeking after god again. After trying to run from my existential anxiety with whatever I could find, fun, activities, entertainment, booze, partys, whatever, none working. I started reading the bible, and christian books, and talked with pastors and other believers. I thought I was going to have to find absolute proof before I would become a christian.
It soon became clear i was not going to find it, I prayed for god to make himself real many times, but nothing happened.
I heard the gospel presented in various ways, after that I took that leap of faith, and put my faith in christ.
I know I really believed, because I had lots of life changing things happen that go with real repentance and faith, but I still had this huge area of doubt, mainly due to what I learned in science.
I needed to find out how christians dealt with the evolution question.
Unfortunatly, what I found was the young earthers. It was immensly appealing to me to find out there were scientists who did not accept evolution and had an alternative explanation, and I was easy prey for them. i wanted to believe so bad I started reading all their stuff, and came to believe evolution was just a competing religion invented by atheist to replace god!
Deep in my mind though that seed of doubt was still there. I did my best to bury it with as much creationism “science” as I could.
My fall from creationism happened when I thought I was ready to take on some evolutionistys on internet discussion boards. I found to my dismay, the evolutionists had all the evidences, and the creationists had the bible, and tried to reinterpret the evidence to fit it. Everywhere I looked even on christian forums, the creationists were losing all the arguments.
I tried to be a presupositionalist and just start with the bible as the only source for truth, but I just couldn’t buy into it. I just ran away from the problem for a while, I backslid and whent back to agnosticism, I even told people I was atheist. But I could not really go back to unbelief. Once you get a taste of the hope of Christ and eternal life it is really hard to go back. I know, I know, subjective, but what can I say? I started seeking the Lord again, am in a good church and active in ministry now. But the question of creation still lingers, I am really excited about the idea that I can be faithful to God, without having to run from scientific knowledge, I am here on this site so I can learn to embrace both confidently!
MT

Oh, I wish there was a way to edit my spelling and typing errors! oh well, it still gets the point across
Thanks biologos for providing this forum!
MT

BioLogos,
Thank you for the invitation to give my testimony:
I had been seeking God, but was convinced that if evolution was correct, then the Genesis and all the subsequent biblical authors who affirmed the historicity of Genesis couldn’t be correct. Consequently, it was only after reading a book critical of Darwinism that I began to consider that the Bible might be the Word of God.
My testimony isn’t unique. Many atheists testify that they have left the Christian faith because of the teachings of evolution. Surveying many Western nations, a study by the INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SURVEY PROGRAM AND EUROBAROMETOR found that belief in human evolution is strongly associated with doubt in a supernatural creator. Consequently, researcher Gregory S. Paul observes that:
“College is a potent secularizer: every year of higher education suppresses the religiosity 7 percent of the student body…Mass popular disbelief in a creator simply would not be possible if not for the materialistic [Darwinian] findings of modern science and popular knowledge of the same.” (FREE INQUIRY, Jan. 2009, 29)
I also think that these testimonies need to be balanced out by some appreciation of the expense entailed in uniting Darwin with Jesus. In “Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion will Transform Your Life and Our World,” Rev. Michael Dowd argues that this marriage can help us salvage some otherwise troubling doctrines. Here’s how:
“The Christian notion of being saved from eternal hellfire by grace through faith does make sense (in a this-worldly way) when seen in an evolutionary context. Freedom from the hell we create for ourselves through pride, arrogance, deception, resentments, hatred, and so forth is available only when we accept that some large Wholeness is at work, and that this undeniable Reality is trustworthy and ultimately on our side.” (184-85)
The “large Wholeness” is some principle which will “save” us by enabling us to accept our “sin.” If this sounds good so far, we need to read a little further:
“By turning from our narrow self-centered way and fears and giving ourselves over to the care and guidance of this Reality (however we may choose to name It/Him/Her), we really can experience salvation, the peace beyond understanding.”
It seems inevitable that this marriage entails severe compromise. I think that Karl Giberson’s words are very illuminating is this regard:
“Acid is an appropriate metaphor for the erosion of my fundamentalism, as I slowly lost confidence in the Genesis story of creation and the scientific creationism that placed this ancient story within the framework of modern science….[Darwin’s] acid dissolved Adam and Eve; it ate through the Garden of Eden; it destroyed the historicity of the events of creation week. It etched holes in those parts of Christianity connected to the stories—the fall, “Christ as the second Adam,” the origins of sin, and nearly everything else that I counted sacred.” (“Saving Darwin,” 9-10)

Becoming a Christian at a young age and working in a non-scientific career, I never had a reason to think deeply about the connection between faith and science. I, like most of my friends, listened to literally interpreted creationist sermons and assumed that was what I what supposed to believe.
I am a huge Bill Bryson fan and in 2004, I picked up his new book “A Short History of Nearly Everything” not even realizing that it was about his attempt as a non-scientist to understand the big questions of science. In reading this, I realized that I had missed 25 years of scientific advancement and its implications.
I had grown up in a company town with a huge scientific industry, had been a research assistant at a prominent Institute and had family members inventing scientific products. How could I have missed the obvious question? You can be entrenched in both science and faith and still be blind to the connection.
Simultaneously, my kids had reached secondary education and I sensed that if I didn’t try to find answers for myself, my kids would question their faith and I wouldn’t be able to answer them. In fact, my kids were studying creationism and evolution side by side at a Christian school and I felt that it was my responsibility as a parent to be the ultimate guide in what they were learning. I began to read everything I could on science and faith. I came to realize (through many of the Biologos affiliated authors, by the way) how science works – what it can and can’t do – and how theology answers different questions.
For me, I had to wrestle with how I looked at the Bible and the science in it. I came to see (through authors such as Peter Enns)how in the Bible, God reveals himself to each author meeting them within their knowledge, their culture and their personality. His revelation always has a human context (including scientific knowledge)and is always relational.
My kids now know how creationism makes you vulnerable to scientific progress. I’m working on my parents now…
St Augustine said it best…If they (unbelievers) find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Interesting discussion going on – John MacArthur on the “Lie of Evolution” – http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/10/john-macarthur-on-the-lie-of-evolution/

From nothing to mud to monkeys to man to Adam.
OK. So what.
Now get on with preaching the Gospel.

In the article above we read concerning Karl Giberson’s theological “journey” that “he found that while evolution did have implications for the creation story, it did nothing to disprove the existence of God or deny him a role in creation. Christianity, he came to conclude, is about Christ, a belief that was not challenged by Darwin’s theory.” This quote goes to the very heart of what is at issue between those who regard the early chapters of Genesis as divinely inspired myth and those who regard those chapters as a sober and accurate record of historical events. What is at issue is the nature of faith itself: may we separate faith in Christ’s Person from adherence to His teaching on particular subjects? Biblical literalists (those who accept Genesis 1-11 as history) say that we cannot ultimately separate these two things; theistic evolutionists seem to say that we can. However, if we really believe that Christ is the incarnation of the living God, “Truth incarnate,” how can we fail to receive fully His teaching on any subject that He addresses– including His teaching concerning the Scriptures themselves? There can be no doubt that Jesus regarded the Scriptures as both infallible and perspicuous (clear) in their teaching. In His struggles with Satan, Jesus repeatedly appealed to the authority of Scripture to refute the lies of the devil. “It is written” was for Him the final court of appeal. In responding to His adversaries, Jesus frequently cited the Scriptures, affirming that “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). The NIV study Bible comments on that verse that, “Jesus [thereby] testified to the complete authority and reliability of the Old Testament.” I could point to many other passages which show that Jesus regarded the Old Testament as entirely trustworthy in its teaching. So when Mr. Giberson says that “Christianity. . .is about Christ” while holding in doubt the trustworthiness of Genesis 1-11 as a sober record of history, my question is, “Which Christ are you talking about?” Certainly not the Christ of the gospels, who said so much to instill in His disciples a childlike faith in the complete truthfulness of everything found in the Scriptures. Does He really believe that Jesus doubted the historicity of Adam and Eve as the first parents of the human race? Or does He believe that Jesus mistakenly regarded them as real persons, whereas we know better now, due to advances in modern science? If he thinks that Jesus erroneously taught that the events recorded in Genesis 1-11 really happened, then how can he regard Jesus as “Truth incarnate”? If Jesus is wrong in his views on the infallible authority and perspicuity of the Hebrew Scriptures, then how can we put implicit trust in any of His teachings? In that case, we must lean on some authority other than Jesus as our final authority.
What I am saying is this: as believers, we must respect the structure of faith itself– by that I mean, the connectedness of Christian beliefs. We cannot disconnect our faith in Jesus’ Person from our full acceptance of His teachings. Jesus did not come into this world to be our Priest and King only, but also our Prophet, to teach us infallibly the will and truth of God. Moreover, it is abundantly clear from the gospel that Jesus wants us to receive the biblical narrative of man’s supernatural origin, his fall into sin, the flood, the dispersion of the nations at Babel, etc., as a reliable record of historical events. For that reason, men of faith who do scientific research must operate from a position of a priori acceptance of biblical teaching on these matters. Their science must be “Bible-driven,” subjected to the clear teaching of Scripture (since biblical theology is, from a Christian standpoint, the “queen of the sciences”), or their interpretation of the data in the natural world will surely err. To reject the authority of Scriptures is to reject the authority of Christ Himself, whose views of Scripture must be determinative of our own.

Martin,
Well put and central to the whole debate! If we are followers of Jesus, we must think and speak as He did.

Martin wrote:
Their science must be “Bible-driven,” subjected to the clear teaching of Scripture (since biblical theology is, from a Christian standpoint, the “queen of the sciences”), or their interpretation of the data in the natural world will surely err. To reject the authority of Scriptures is to reject the authority of Christ Himself, whose views of Scripture must be determinative of our own.
But what if your interpretation of scripture is wrong? It then leads to interpreting data in the natural world wrong, as in the famous example of Copernicus and Galileo, where the church refuted the scientists’ heliocentric view and persecuted them for not believing the Bible’s geocentric view of the earth staying still while the sun revolved around it.
I, for one, appreciate the work of Biologos. My readings this past year, for the first time done with an open mind, have caused me to realize the support which exists for evolution. I am trying to sort out right now what this means for my faith and I appreciate Biologos standing in the middle ground of this false dichotomy between evolution and Christianity. I am a believer, but I am not going to close my eyes with my fingers in my ears while singing “la la la” in an effort to shut out all the evidence before me so as not to disturb my faith. That type of faith is based on fear and denial and it is exhausting trying to maintain it.

amy b,
My favorite example of “Bible-driven” science is Jesus’ statement that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. The logic of the “clear teaching of scripture” would lead one to think that since Jesus is wrong about the natural world, he must be wrong about the spiritual. Clearly, he knows his audience and uses their knowledge of seeds to explain how His kingdom began small, but will grow to greatness. He knows how to speak to each of us within our own understanding and in sharing his message, we would be wise to speak in the same way.
As well as sharing your name, I share your sentiment that a faith based on fear and denial isn’t worth it.

Martin Rizley,
If Jesus claimed to have perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and future, then your arguement might have some traction. But this view of Jesus as being 100% God and having no human limitations was dismissed in the 2nd century as the heresy of Docetism. The incarnate Lord was both fully human and fully God. And Jesus himself recognized that there were things he didn’t know. He also appealed to commonly understood cosmology, history and geography (and botonay as Amy pointed out) which we should expect given the limitations associated with His humanity.
Your argument not only makes bas assumptions about the nature of Christ’s divinity, but I believe it to be injurious to the faith. It is physically impossible that the events of Genesis 1-11 played themselves out literally in the timeframes traditionally understood. Physically impossible. This is not something that traditional Christianity has had to wrestle with. But that’s the deal for us. We know too much about the world we inhabit to blindly cling to medieval formulations of Christian orthodoxy.
By physically impossible, I mean that not only would have God needed to work a miracle here or there to make the story fit the data, but he would have had to erase mountains of data from the cosmos by fiat and replace them with mountains of coherent data that tell an entirely different story of origins. But why?
Unfortunately my friend, you can’t avoid theological controversy by simply avoiding the data. Ignorance is not bliss. You must then wrestle with a God who deceives his people on a massive scale. A charlaton creator who says one thing but does another. Personally, I would rather have a God who creates through process, and accomodates revelation to the limitations of His people. This is far more consistent with God’s character than the charlaton Creator creationists are left with.

The incarnate Lord was both fully human and fully God. – Gordon J. Glover
… and therefore couldn’t possibly have existed. Christianity: the only religion that actually proves itself false!

Amy, MT and Amy B,
I think that we need to be careful so as not to evaluate our testimonies and new syntheses by strictly short-term benefits. Some things that feel right might prove to be entirely wrong in the long-run.
As a high-school moralist, I was quickly converted to moral relativism upon entering college. I then made the logical jump to nihilism – the utter absence of any intrinsic values. It was a heady experience, at least at the beginning. I was now the captain of my own ship. The only standards were the ones I created for myself. Consequently, my feelings of guilt and shame were entirely baseless. And knowing this, I could learn to overcome them! Life stood before me for the taking.
However, I had failed to regard the small print. I subsequently found that my ship was unmanageable and every port-of-call was the same. Instead of freedom, I found that life had become an oppressive burden, but it took years in order to recognize this.
There is a lot of small print inherent in the “marriage contract” you’ve transacted. There are hidden costs which you might not have anticipated. Let me point out a few:
1. LACK OF STABILITY IN THE DARWIN/CHRIST MARRIAGE: The Darwinist worldview is entirely different from the Biblical at its most fundamental points. While the Bible insists that God created everything good and that we are the problem (Gen. 3), Darwin is unequivocal that, even at the beginning, life was characterized as a bloody survival-of-the-fittest struggle. All subsequent theology hinges upon this: the Fall and origin of sin (Gen. 3), the Redemption (1 Cor. 15:21-22), the Restoration (Acts 3:21). Hence, you have opened the door to a continual struggle for authority between Darwin and Jesus, as Darwin seeks to erode what you have retained.
2. AN UNDERMINING OF ALL OBJECTIVE REASONS TO BELIEVE IN THE CHRISTIAN FAITH: Since theistic evolutionists teach that the Bible isn’t about this physical world (in order to make room for Darwinism) but rather the theological world, they have consequently come to disdain any of the classical theistic proofs for God and the Christian faith. Consequently, they have rendered themselves ineffectual in bringing the Gospel to unbelievers and have been relegated to the position of only being able to talk effectively to those who already have a faith in Christ. They have marginalized themselves away from the broader exchange of ideas.
3. AN UNDERMINING OF THEIR OWN CONFIDENCE IN CHRIST: In order to make room for Darwin, the theistic evolutionist (TE) must relegate much of Genesis to the place of myth. However, all of the writers of Scripture, including Jesus, regard these accounts as historical. Therefore, the TE is forced to admit that these authorities are also teaching myth. However, in order to retain some semblance of the Christian faith, they must make the unbiblical distinction between the science and history of the Bible and the theology of the Bible. But we can’t separate the history of the Cross from the theology of the Cross. This inseparable bond also pertains to other doctrines. How then can you trust in the theology of the Bible, when you are unwilling to trust in the history of the Bible?
I think that there are more fruitful ways to resolve the conflict that drove you to marry Darwin to your Jesus. Although I agree with you that the Christian faith shouldn’t be a matter of fear and the denial of oppositional voices, it need not be so! I think that there is another more authentic and Biblically based way of dealing with the tension between the world of scholarship and the Faith, and I think that it involves the way we prioritize authoritative sources.
The central question is this: “What source of truth or revelation is most authoritative? What source is most reliable? What lens should predominate as we construct our worldviews – a Biblical lens or the prevailing scientific consensus (2 Cor. 10:4-5)? To which “Master” will we submit ourselves (Mat. 6:23-24)? What and who should be compromised if there is a conflict?”
We are highly corruptible beings, easily molded by the influences to which we have been subjected. I am not suggesting that holding to a thorough-going Biblical worldview is without its tension or dissonance. While it doesn’t reject looking at the counter-evidence, it requires exercising a certain degree of skepticism and detachment regarding it (as contrasted with an open embrace).

In the article above we read concerning Giberson’s theological “evolution” that “he found that while evolution did have implications for the creation story, it did nothing to disprove the existence of God or deny him a role in creation. Christianity, he came to conclude, is about Christ, a belief that was not challenged by Darwin’s theory.” This quote goes to the very heart of what is at issue between those who regard the early chapters of Genesis as myth and those who regard them as a sober and accurate record of historical events. What is at issue is the nature of faith itself: may we separate faith in Christ’s Person from adherence to His teaching on particular subjects? Biblical literalists (those who accept Genesis 1-11 as history) say that we cannot ultimately separate these two things; theistic evolutionists seem to say that we can. However, if we really believe that Christ is the incarnation of the living God, “Truth incarnate,” how can we fail to receive fully His teaching on any subject that He addresses– including His teaching concerning the Scriptures themselves? There can be no doubt that Jesus regarded the Scriptures as both infallible and perspicuous (clear) in their teaching. In His struggles with Satan, Jesus repeatedly appealed to the authority of Scripture to refute the lies of the devil. “It is written” was for Him the final court of appeal. In responding to His adversaries, Jesus frequently cited the Scriptures, affirming that “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). The NIV study Bible comments on that verse that, “Jesus [thereby] testified to the complete authority and reliability of the Old Testament.” I could point to many other passages which show that Jesus regarded the Old Testament as entirely trustworthy in its teaching. So when Mr. Giberson says that “Christianity. . .is about Christ” while holding in doubt the trustworthiness of Genesis 1-11 as a sober record of history, my question is, “Which Christ are you talking about?” Certainly not the Christ of the gospels, who said so much to instill in His disciples a childlike faith in the complete truthfulness of everything found in the Scriptures. Does He really believe that Jesus doubted the historicity of Adam and Eve as the first parents of the human race? Or does He believe that Jesus mistakenly regarded them as real persons, whereas we know better now, due to advances in modern science? If he thinks that Jesus erroneously taught that the events recorded in Genesis 1-11 really happened, then how can he regard Jesus as “Truth incarnate”? If Jesus is wrong in his views on the infallible authority and perspicuity of the Hebrew Scriptures, then how can we put implicit trust in any of His teachings? In that case, we must lean some authority other than Jesus as our final authority.
What I am saying is that as believers we must respect the structure of faith– by that I mean, the connectedness of Christian beliefs. We cannot disconnect our faith in Jesus’ Person from acceptance of His teachings. Jesus did not come into this world to be our Priest and King only, but also our Prophet, to teach us infallibly the will and truth of God. Moreover, it is abundantly clear from the gospel that Jesus wants us to receive the biblical narrative of man’s supernatural origin, his fall into sin, the flood, the dispersion of the nations at Babel, etc., as a reliable record of historical events. For that reason, men of faith who do scientific research must operate from a position of a priori acceptance of biblical teaching on these matters. Their science must be “Bible-driven,” subjected to the clear teachings of Scripture, or their interpretation of the data in the natural world will surely err. To reject the authority of Scriptures is to reject the authority of Christ Himself, whose views of Scripture must be determinative of our own.

Martin’s response to amy b and Amy,
When I speak of a “Bible-driven” approach to science, I mean an approach to science which presupposes information about the world provided by a careful and rigorous exegesis of Scripture. The Catholic church’s condemnation of Galileo can hardly been said to have been based on a “careful and rigorous exegesis” of Scripture. It had as much to do with the professional envy of his scientific colleagues and with the high esteem people held in that day for the cosmology of Aristotle as anything else. As Jonathan Sarfati points out, “The first to oppose Galileo was the scientific establishment. The prevailing “scientific” wisdom of his day was the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic theory. . .It is true that the official charge mentioned Scripture, but this should not hide the fact that the church’s real beef with Galileo was his disobedience to the church’s authority rather than a theological error.” While it is true, therefore, that a shallow or “tradition-bound” approach to “Bible-driven science” could shackle men’s minds with erroneous ideas, thus hindering the advancement of scientific knowledge, “Bible-driven science” based on careful and rigorous exegesis of the text must lead to the opening of minds and the advancement of scientific knowledge, since there can be no contradiction ultimately between the truth of God revealed in Scripture and a true understanding of the natural world. To be sure, one learns an important lesson from the Galileo incident, as Wayne Grudem points out, and that is that “careful observation of the natural world can cause us to go back to Scripture and reexamine whether Scripture actually teaches what we think it teaches. Sometimes, on a closer examination of the text, we may find that our previous interpretations were incorrect.” That’s just what happened in the case of Galileo. As Christians reexamined the text of Scripture in light of Galileo’s findings, they came to see that it does not in fact teach that the sun goes around the earth. In fact, the whole issue of heliocentrism vs. geocentrism is outside the scope of Scripture, since the language of Scripture in its description of the sun’s movements is phenomenological (the language of simple observation) and implies nothing about the relative movements of the earth and the sun to each other as astral bodies in outer space. “It was Copernican astronomy that made people look again at Scripture to see if it really taught what they thought it taught.” Grudem goes on to point out, however, that with regard to the question of human origins, “Christians have examined Scripture again and again in great detail, and many have concluded that Scripture is not silent on the process by which living organisms came into being.” After much study of the opening chapters of Genesis, I am convinced that it is impossible for a careful exegesis of Scripture to lead to any conclusion other than that Adam and Eve were the literal parents of the human race. The Scriptural evidence for that position is overwhelming. For example, the genealogy of Genesis 5 traces the lineage of Adam through Seth all the way to Noah, and the genealogy of Genesis 11 traces the lineage of Noah all the way to Abraham. Thus, “the historical material in Genesis continues without a break into the obviously historical material about Abraham, showing the author intended the entire section to be historical” (Grudem). Luke, in his gospel narrative, also traces the descent of Jesus backwards, listing a number of historical characters like David, Jesse, Jacob, Abraham, and ending as follows: “which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” There is no hint in the text whatsoever that Adam is to be regarded as a “mythical” character, in contrast to the others descendants of Jesus. One cannot reach any other conclusion without abandoning Scriptural exegesis altogether and importing philosophical ideas totally foreign to the Scripture as a “grid” through which to read its teaching. So in conclusion, I would say that when our observations of the natural world seem to conflict with our understanding of Scripture, we should look again at both, seeking to find where our limited understanding and imperfect knowledge of either could be wrong. But as people of faith, we must give priority to the teaching of Scripture by refusing to allow potentially erroneous interpretations of natural science lead us away from clear Scriptural teachings based on a careful and rigorous exegesis of the biblical text. No one can expect Christians to do otherwise, since they view the Bible as Jesus did– that is, as the infallible and perspicuous (clear) Word of God.

Gordon,
You wrongly asserted, “If Jesus claimed to have perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and future, then your arguement might have some traction. But this view of Jesus as being 100% God and having no human limitations was dismissed in the 2nd century as the heresy of Docetism.”
I think that you misunderstand and therefore misappropriate the argument about “Docetism.” Therefore, I think it best to go to the source to attempt to understand what Jesus was claiming about His words:
• Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
• John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
• John 7:17-18 If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him.
• John 8:26-28 “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world…When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.
• John 12:49-50 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”
• John 14:10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Jesus acknowledges no error in what He stated, but rather that it all came from Deity! It doesn’t seem that your conclusions are Scripture-based, but rather Darwin-driven!

Excellent post, Daniel!
The verses you quoted clearly refute the charge that Jesus taught error as truth. It is one thing to admit, as Jesus did, that there were matters about which He was ignorant, since it was not the Father’s will for Him to know certain things during His time on earth(for example, the day and hour of His return). Therefore, we can admit that Jesus did not know some things according to His human nature. In fact, from the standpoint of His humanity, He grew in knowledge and wisdom, just as He grew in His physical stature. It is quite another thing to assert that Jesus taught error on the basis of ignorance. As you have pointed out, Jesus was very careful in His teaching to speak only that which the Father had taught Him. His teachings are therefore entirely trustworthy. Of course, when interpreting His words, one must take into account that Jesus used figures of speech like any human being. When he spoke of the mustard seed as the tiniest of all seeds, he was speaking as we do when we say that a particular restaurant serves “the tiniest portions imaginable!” (Technically speaking, one can always imagine tinier portions!) Jesus did not avoid the use of hyperbole and other figures of speech; careful exegesis of Scripture will take that into account. What we must not say, however, is that Jesus’ teachings represent a ‘mixed bag’ of spiritual truth and culture-based prejudices and errors. That’s the same argument people use to reject the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality; we can safely ignore what the Bible says on that subject, they say, since at that point, the Bible reflects the ignorant prejudices of ancient Jewish culture.

Martin,
I agree. Distinguishing between the common language Jesus necessarily used and an allegedly errant, mythological worldview so often ascribed to Him by TEs, is critical.
If Jesus was mistaken, then we have to exalt ourselves above Scripture to judge what to choose, instead of Scripture judging us – an entirely different phenomenon and faith experience! In the former instance, WE are in charge!

Of course, when interpreting His words, one must take into account that Jesus used figures of speech like any human being. When he spoke of the mustard seed as the tiniest of all seeds, he was speaking as we do when we say that a particular restaurant serves “the tiniest portions imaginable!”

Yes, Jesus often used hyperbole and other figures of speech. But in this case, He did NOT use a figure of speech, and did NOT say “the smallest of all seeds imaginable.” It is simply the “smallest of all seeds.”

We cut Jesus a lot of slack in his hypostatic nature. He cries (he’s fully human), he raises Lazarus (he’s fully divine), he doesn’t know his return (he’s fully human), he knows what Judas will do (he’s fully divine), he dies and is buried (he’s fully human) and he is raised from the dead (he’s fully divine).
BUT when it comes to Moses (if he is in fact the author of Genesis), a full human inspired by God, his words become fully divine, a dictation by God with no human qualities.
Doesn’t make sense.

We cut Jesus a lot of slack in his hypostatic nature. He cries (he’s fully human), he raises Lazarus (he’s fully divine), he doesn’t know his return (he’s fully human), he knows what Judas will do (he’s fully divine), he dies and is buried (he’s fully human) and he is raised from the dead (he’s fully divine). – Amy
The obvious conclusion: the whole thing is nonsense.

I’m glad to see Steve Martin’s blog mentioned here – it’s a great sight and an encouragment. I’m one of the many who grew up under the false dichotomy of christian creationist of atheist evolutionist. The key to my finding that I can be both a Christian and a good scientist was having mentors along the way, both in the form of personal relationships and authors such as Kenneth R. Miller, who explained that there was another way to look at things. Now I look for opportunities to return the favor.

Beagle lady,
Perhaps you are right that “figure of speech” and “hyperbole” are not the best terms to use in describing Jesus’ statement about the mustard seed being the “smallest of seeds.” It may be better simply to say that his words must be interpreted in their context; when they are, it is obvious that he is not trying to make some sort of absolute statement about world agriculture. He is addressing a particular people (first century Jews) and using an illustration drawn from their agricultural circumstances to make a theological point about the kingdom of God. As the NIV Study Bible points out, “The mustard seed is not the smallest seed known today, but it was the smallest seed used by farmers and gardeners there and at that time, and under favorable conditions the plant could reach about ten feet in height.” In that culture, references were made proverbially to the mustard seed to indicate anything very minute in its beginning. So it is perfectly understandable, given that context, why Jesus would refer to the mustard seed as “the smallest of seeds.” Remember the fundamental principle of biblical exegesis– “A text without a context is a pretext.” Let’s not quibble over the “scientific inexactitude” over statements that are not intended to be “scientific” in the first place!

Amy,
I’m not sure I really understand what you are saying. No one is “cutting Jesus slack” by saying that His “errors” can be attributed to His human nature. Nothing you mention– the fact that Jesus cried, or that He did not know the day of His return, or that He died and was buried– suggests that He taught error. Rather, just like Moses before Him, Jesus fulfilled His prophetic office by teaching the truth and will of God without error. The same claim to inerrancy is made for Jesus and Moses. So I don’t see your point. The fact that He exhibited both human and divine qualities– is that not what we would expect, if in fact He was both fully human and divine. So what’s your point?

Martin, now you making sense! Let me take your exact words (which I agree with) and apply them regarding Jesus’ statement about there being an original human couple…
“It may be better simply to say that his words must be interpreted in their context; when they are, it is obvious that he is not trying to make some sort of absolute statement about human biological origins. He is addressing a particular people (first century Jews) and using an illustration drawn from their contemporary biological understanding to make a theological point about our sinful nature and need for a savior. As Walton’s commentary on Genesis points out, “That the human race came from an original human couple who lived less than 6000 is not the view of biological origins today, but it was the view of human origins used by God people in the Ancient Near East, and that the offspring of each living was observed to only resemble its parents was scientific doctrine.” In that culture, references were made proverbially to an original human couple to indicate that life had a beginning and all men have inherited a sin nature. So it is perfectly understandable, given that context, why Jesus would refer to Adam as “the first man.” Remember the fundamental principle of biblical exegesis– “A text without a context is a pretext.” Let’s not quibble over the “scientific inexactitude” over statements that are not intended to be “scientific” in the first place!”
Amen.

Martin,
You’re right, I wasn’t clear. Yes, nothing I mentioned– the fact that Jesus cried, or that He did not know the day of His return, or that He died and was buried– suggests that He taught error. And yes, Jesus fulfilled His prophetic office by teaching the truth and will of God without error.
My point was one about human limitations. Jesus exhibited emotional, physical and cognitive limits in his becoming human. God sent Christ to become one of us in order that the world might be saved through him. It was the ultimate revelation of God (so far).
To raise fully human biblical authors (Moses, David, Paul…) above these same human limitations is what makes no sense to me. Again, I’m not talking about error. Looking at the biblical authors and realizing how God inspired them within their knowledge, their culture, their sin, and their following the will of God is what strengthens my faith. God’s character becomes evident. Also, it gives me comfort and confidence as the Holy Spirit speaks to me to know that I’m being met within my earthly limitations (And God only knows how much I need that!) Thankfully, God is patient.
Last year, I spent 9 months studying Genesis on a daily basis thinking that I would solve the science controversy with creation. Guess what God taught me about science…nothing! However, he taught me about his character and what he was trying to teach Israel through Moses. It made me realize that Genesis isn’t about science; it’s about God revealing himself and relating to the ancient Hebrews within their human limitations. Like the Pharisees being held in bondage to the Law, I was being held bondage to the Laws of Nature presented in Genesis. There is much freedom in seeing not what and when God creates in Genesis, but how God works with us to show himself.

Gordon,
The difference between Jesus’ statement concerning the mustard seed and his statements concerning Adam are that neither Jesus nor the Jews believed anything about mustard seeds in absolute terms; they simply knew that in their own daily practice, of all the seeds they planted, the mustard seed was the “smallest of seeds.” That belief was a true belief; therefore, by saying that the mustard seed was “the smallest of seeds,” Jesus was by no means confirming the Jews in an erroneous belief. However, when it came to the origin of the human race, the Jews did believe in absolute terms that the entire race descended from a single human pair; and they believed that, not because of popular superstition, but because their own inspired Scriptures taught that them that. Those Scriptures give detailed genealogies of Adam’s descendants, along with the lifespan of those descendants. In terms of literary form, therefore, the Genesis narrative do not resemble ancient myths, which always take place in some shadowy, unspecified past “once upon a time;” rather they have all the earmarks of a sober historical record of actual events. Apparently, Jesus regarded them as historical, because in his condemnation of the religious leaders who were about to put him to death, he tells them that “all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth” would come upon them, “from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah to the blood of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.” Jesus’ regarded Abel’s blood to be as historical as the blood of the other prophets he mentions. Later, He speaks of the days prior to His second coming as being “as it was in the days of Noah.” If you say that, in these instances, Jesus was simply making a theological point using mythical concepts inherited from His culture, the question naturally arises, “What about His statement concerning the second coming?” At this point, was He also speaking within the framework of mythical concepts inherited from His Jewish culture? Is Jesus literally coming back, or is the concept of His “second coming” true only in a “theological” or spiritual sense? That would seem to contradict the words of the angel in Acts 1:11– “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
What I am saying is that we must be extremely careful in interpreting the Scripture by following sound hermeneutical principles. When we do that, it becomes clear that Jesus never taught error nor confirmed the Jews in erroneous beliefs based on ignorance and superstition. I believe that Paul Little points to a very real danger when he writes, “If we do not take those passages of the Bible literally that God intended to be literal, we can easily miss or change the obvious intent of the authors. Such a view would interpret certain biblical events (for instance, the initial sin of humanity beginning with Adam and Eve) as nonfactual stories recorded to illustrate and convey only spiritual truth. . .This view of the Bible would feel free to allegorize any of the historical, biblical events. The result would be a completely subjective interpretation of the truth conveyed by God’s Word. Put simply, this logic bypasses the grammatical and syntactical intent of the words. . .Biblical events such as the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ would be seen as legends conveying no vital importance. The avoidance of “literal” could lead to a pick and choose interpretation removing any thought of divine biblical inspiration.” The vital question is this– Are we too allow men’s fallible interpretation of scientific data to override the basic principles of hermeneutics when interpreting the Bible? My trust in human scholarship ends when men tell me I must abandon sound hermeneutical principles in order to understand the Scriptures rightly.

“The difference between Jesus’ statement concerning the mustard seed and his statements concerning Adam are that neither Jesus nor the Jews believed anything about mustard seeds in absolute terms; they simply knew that in their own daily practice, of all the seeds they planted, the mustard seed was the “smallest of seeds.” — How is this any different from the common (daily practice) belief that the entire human race descended from a single human couple?
“That belief was a true belief…” — Unfortunately, it is one of the easiest things to demonstrate as FALSE. In scientific terms, it has been falsified by several independent lines of evidence. Believing it is tantamount to believing that the sun orbits the earth.
“…therefore, by saying that the mustard seed was “the smallest of seeds,” Jesus was by no means confirming the Jews in an erroneous belief. However, when it came to the origin of the human race, the Jews did believe in absolute terms that the entire race descended from a single human pair; and they believed that, not because of popular superstition, but because their own inspired Scriptures taught that them that.” — Special Pleading. Why did the Jews believe that all humans came from a single pair? For the same reason they believed that the mustard seed was smallest, or that the heart was seat of intellect and emotions, or that demons caused epilepsy, or that…. They believed these things because of when and where they lived.
“Those Scriptures give detailed genealogies of Adam’s descendants, along with the lifespan of those descendants.” — Hint: when a geneaology includes human ages up to 900 years, you’re probably not dealing with something that is historically accurrate. Moreover, if the number between sucessive generations and the pattern of longevity fits a very specific numerical sequence, the numbers are probably not quantitative. This is very common in the ANE, where numerology wasn’t necessarily quantitative like it for us moderns. Numbers were symbolic (qualitative). In a real geneaology, the number of years between generations and ages do not line up according to exact mathematical patterns. They just don’t. Obviously, there is more going here.
“In terms of literary form, therefore, the Genesis narrative do not resemble ancient myths, which always take place in some shadowy, unspecified past “once upon a time;” rather they have all the earmarks of a sober historical record of actual events.” — Not sure you’ve done your homework here. The numerology from Genesis is very similar to how numbers were used in other myths. You should look into this.
“At this point, was He also speaking within the framework of mythical concepts inherited from His Jewish culture? Is Jesus literally coming back, or is the concept of His “second coming” true only in a “theological” or spiritual sense?” — I’m a preterist. Do you really want me to answer that?
“That would seem to contradict the words of the angel in Acts 1:11– “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”” — even that statement assumes that heaven is just above the clouds. This was a common misconception in the ANE. Paul had a vision that he was taking up into the 3rd heaven (the highest heaven). Again, the message of Scripture is expressed through a ANE cosmological worldview. No amount of hermeneutical gymnastics can get around this.
“When we do that, it becomes clear that Jesus never taught error nor confirmed the Jews in erroneous beliefs based on ignorance and superstition.” — quite the opposite. We see God using even the foolisness of the world as a vehicle to communicate his message.
Something that is demonstrably false, like a global flood or a recent creation, doesn’t become true just becuase the Hebrews believed it. You can kick and scream all you want in the form of “trusting God’s word over fallible human wisdom”, but when something can be so plainly demonstrated (ie: the age of the earth, the sphericity of the earth, the motion of the earth around the sun, the relative magnitute of the moon and stars, etc…), we must return to the Scriptures and wrestle with them. There are so many instances of the biblical authors (including Jesus) accommodating revelation to pre-existing beliefs, that one is forced to see the Scripture through the eyes of the original audience, and not through a modern 21st century interpretative grid — one that didn’t even exist during the time God’s people committed his Word to writing.
Or you can do what most evangelicals do and pretend that modern science doesn’t exist. Or that it has been corrupted by atheism. But this is neither responsible, nor is it God-honoring. We must educate ourselves, confront the data head on, and make the appropriate adjustments to either our scientific knowledge or our tratidional understanding of God’s Word.

Gordon,
How can you say that the Jews’ belief concerning the mustard seed was a false belief? Don’t you think they were capable of comparing visually the seeds they planted and determining which among them was the smallest? If I regularly plant pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, and poppy seed, am I making a false statement if I say that, of all the seeds that I plant, the poppy seed is the “smallest of seeds”? Of course not! So I assert again, as an incontrovertible truth, that the Jews’ belief that the mustard seed was the smallest of all the seeds they planted was a true belief. They had eyes! They could see which was smallest! Jesus’ statement would be false only if He were trying to make some sort of absolute pronouncement concerning all the seeds that exist on planet earth– which was not His intention at all.
Moreover, to say that the Jews believed whatever they believed “because of when and where they lived,” is a gross oversimplification. The Jews’ derived their beliefs, just as we do in the twenty-first century, from a number of sources of varying reliability. They believed some things based on simple observation and daily experience, other things based on news reports they heard from Rome, other things based on popular superstition and tradition, and other things based on historical records composed by writers like Josephus. Their belief about Adam and Eve, however, was based, not on the writings of any secular historian, but on the explicit teaching of their inspired Scriptures, which Jesus affirmed to be entirely truthful and without error. Therefore, to say they held to a particular belief about human origins “because of when and where they lived” is altogether too simplistic a statement. Moreover, a particular belief cannot be proven either true or false by looking simply at “where and when” the people lived who first held that belief. The fact that first century Jews based some of their beliefs on ignorance and superstition, doesn’t mean that all of their beliefs were based on ignorance and superstition.
With regard to the extremely long ages of the patriarch recorded in Genesis 5, I want to offer several thoughts. You say that the ages listed there are symbolic in meaning, pointing to examples from ANE literature where extremely long ages are given for historical figures. It is true that texts have been found which list ancient kings who are said to have reigned for tens of thousands of years, and no one today believes that those texts are historically accurate. However, such texts may bear witness to the fact that that men lived much longer before the Flood than after. The fact that the Bible records a precipitous drop in the lifespan of human beings after the flood suggests that changed conditions after the flood may have caused a shortening of the human lifespan. Various theories have been offered for this shortening of the lifespan– from changes in earth’s environment to the loss of ‘longevity genes” caused by the phenomenon known as “genetic drift.“ The sharp population decrease at the time of the Flood, and the splitting of the gene pool at Babel, as well, could have affected the lifespan of human beings. That genetic mutations can cause a decrease in the human lifespan is obvious from what we observe with the premature aging disease progeria. Due to a genetic mutation, sufferers age five to ten times faster than usual, with typical geriatric symptoms of baldness, cataracts, etc., dying by the age of about 13, usually from heart attack or stroke. Jonathan Sarfati asks, “If a single change from cytosine to thymine can cause a tenfold drop in life spans, perhaps a similar mutation caused a life span drop by a similar factor after the Flood.” I should point that it is not only young earth creationists believe that there was a dramatic shortening of the human lifespan after the flood; even progressive creationists like Hugh Ross hold that view.
Although this position will undoubtedly seem ridiculous to those who take the uniformitarian view that “the present is the key to the past,” they do not appear ridiculous to those who take the opposite view that “the past is the key to the present.” What we have to decide is whether we are going to read the Bible from the standpoint of naturalism, or open ourselves to the supernatural worldview of the Bible itself. The supernaturalist believes that God in the past acted in miraculous ways to perform great nature miracles that He is not performing at the present time: causing ax heads to float, causing the shadow on a sundial to go backwards, lengthening a normal day to twice its length, causing a lifeless stick to blossom overnight, raising people from the dead, and other such “impossible” feats– impossible, that is, according to the worldview of naturalism. The supernaturalist’s worldview enables him to take at face value many biblical teachings that the “naturalist” finds outlandish and impossible to accept. So our difference in interpretation of the Scriptures seems to be rooted, Gordon, in a difference of presuppositions. It seems to me that you seem are reading much of the Scriptures through the grid of naturalism; that explains why you cannot accept as literally true the existence of demons, for example, or their ability to inflict physical disease and suffering on human beings. On the other hand, I am reading the Scriptures without those naturalist lenses, so I see no reason not to accept at face value the biblical miracles as having literally occurred.

We cannot but deplore certain attitudes which have existed among Christians themselves, insufficiently attentive to the legitimate autonomy of science. Sources of tensions and conflicts, they have lead many minds to conclude that faith and science are mutually opposed.Scientists will often reject faith because they frequently are confronted with religious claims which plainly contradict the observable data concerning the natural world.Either science or faith–whether in the hearts of individuals or institutions–can attempt to absolutist its role by claiming for itself the sole source of truth.