I was reminded of the (in)famous Acambaro (Mexico) clay dinosaurs this weekend by a list of famous archaeological hoaxes / conundrums sent to me. In case you had not heard of these before (see pictures below), you can get a nice overview on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, these often appear on Christian websites in “support” of creationism (but others have wised up and admitted they are fakes).
How do we know that they are fakes?
You’ll notice if you read the overview that things like fresh manure and fingerprints were found in the sites from which these figures were removed, and the sheer number (over 32,000) indicates chicanery (native inhabitants were paid for each figure by the Waldemar Julsrud, the “discoverer,” ca. 1944).
All that aside, the article and various websites note that thermoluminiscence dating techniques yielded a date of ca. 2500 BC for the figurines. The methods used proved erroneous. Here is a two page overview of the subject and problem from the University of Pennsylvania Museum publication, Expedition. That short article alludes to a study of the figures published in 1953 in the scholarly journal American Antiquity (vol. 18:4 [1953]: 388-389) by Charles C. Di Peso. Here is that article.
Lastly, a more recent report and scientific dating analysis has been done on the figures, proving conclusively they are fakes. That article is entitled, “Thermoluminescent Dating and the Monsters of Acambaro” (American Antiquity 41:4 [Oct. 1976]: 497-500).
The study says it took a random sample of ’20’ of the 32,000 figurines. Even if it were given that many of the figurines were fake, 20 out of 32,000 is too small a sample to say all 32,000 were fake.
the key word is random — and that doesn’t include the other evidences of chicanery involved.
“Random” has nothing to do with it, whatsoever. 20 is too small a sample of 32,000. You could hand-pick 20 in the most deterministic way possible, it would still be too small of a sample size. The key here is “20” not “random”. If you were still at a university, you could check with one of your colleagues in the math department. As it stands, five seconds of critical thinking will have to suffice.
actually, it does, so as to avoid picking one type. But here is the issue: How many of the samples showed a 2500 BC date? Answer: None. Really, this sort of thing is totally unnecessary when it comes to defending the idea of a creator (if that is a concern). It’s just pointless.
Given that none of the 20 samples showed a 2500 BC date. And with 32,000 figurines it should be easy to avoid picking the same type twice (there is reported to be a great variety). But the issue of inadequate sample size remains.
And it can be defended that there is a creator apart from the Acambaro collection. But the more the defensible evidences the better, and we ought not toss one out too easily. And the issue with this collection is not only whether there is a creator, but that, if at all genuine, it would undo the millions-of-years evolutionary paradigm that undergirds modern (esentially atheistic) scolarship.
what will de-motivate people to do more work here is the *combination* of negative test results and the other signs of tampering. Anyone who would use these figurines as evidence for creation is very unwise. I’m a creationist (though not with a lot of its baggage regarding the interpretation of Genesis) and I wouldn’t touch anything so tenuous with a ten foot pole.
Hey MSH, I’m a little curious: How old do you believe the earth to be? I’ve read that you believe that Noah’s Flood was local, so I’m assuming you aren’t a young earth creationist?
I have no idea. I’ve read some good material on both sides and can’t really evaluate it since I’m not a geologist. I don’t believe Genesis 1-2 is about giving us anything scientific about origins (it’s purpose is to establish Yahweh as creator and “diss” the other gods; see John Walton’s book The Lost World of Genesis 1; I take the same view except I’m really not with him on his understanding of bara’). If one reads all the biblical cosmological texts at face value (“literally”) they are stock descriptions of a pre-scientific cosmology shared by other civilizations of the ancient near east (round, flat earth, pillars underneath, solid dome=sky, windows in the sky, pillars holding up the sky dome — all the stock elements are there. The difference is the theology behind the worldview. When you take that view (viewing Genesis like an ancient Semite / Israelite would) the age of the earth just doesn’t matter. I’d be fine with a creation in millions of years or one second.
MSH, on your point of pre-scientific cosmology, have you read ‘Starlight and Time’ by Russell Humphreys of Sandia National Labs? He opened my eyes to a somewhat different but (to me) reasonable understanding of Genesis 1 (I got to spend a week with him and others scaling Grand Canyon). His is a young earth view that fits modern physics.
you’re missing the point. Starlight and time has nothing to do with the idea that the sky / firmament is solid like brass – Job 37:18. It’s not about equations and physics. It’s about a pre-scientific cosmology consistent across the ancient near east (I doubt if we want to say the Egyptians and Mesopotamians had a cosmology that Russell Humphreys could resolve with science).
Although I am not a statistician, 20 randomly selected items that all indicate the same result seems intuitively unlikely if the contrary result is prevalent in the population being measured.
It also seems unlikely if the two different results are split 50% in the population.
Of course, if the measured result is prevalent in the population, then it would be an accurate measure.
Best case:
—————————————-
If 31,980 figurines are genuine and 20 are fakes, then the chances of randomly selecting all 20 fakes are essentially zero.
20 / 32,000 = 0.0625 %
19 / 31,999 = 0.0594 %
… etc…
Multiply these odds together = 1.9 x 10^(-70) % chance of this occurring or Zero in practical terms.
Half and half case:
—————————————-
If 16k figurines are genuine and 16,000 are fakes, then the chances of randomly selecting all 20 fakes are almost zero (0.00009%).
16,000 / (16,000 + 16k) = 50.0000%
15,999 / (15,999 + 16k) = 49.9984%
… etc…
Multiply these odds together = 0.00009% chance of this occurring.
Worse case:
—————————————-
If 31,980 figurines are fakes and 20 are real, then the chances of randomly selecting 20 fakes are about 99%:
31,980 / 32,000 = 99.937500%
31,979 / 31,999 = 99.937498%
… etc…
Multiply these odds together = 98.757% chance of this occurring.
—————————————-
Bottom line, no matter how you cut it up, this cache consists of fake artifacts.
At best, it is 0.00000% likely real.
At half, it is 0.00009% likely real.
At worse, it is 98.757% likely fake.
Again, I am not a mathematician, but this does seem to make sense and would explain why a scientist would stop at 20 items (I mean statistics is a way-of-life for a scientist and it is not likely such a person would fail to measure an overwhelmingly statistical-valid sample size).
thanks!
Author Dr. Gerald Schroeder wrote about the subject of Genesis and how it might correlate to modern scientific thought.
IIRC, Dr. Schroeder is a physicist and examined many aspects of the Torah. Two quick points that I recall:
First, Western Science has held that the universe was eternal and static from the times of Socrates until about the 1960’s. The only prominent document that was contrary to Socrates was the Torah (and by extension, the Old Testament of the Bible), which held that the universe had a beginning (it was created). Indeed, the Torah is older than Western Science by thousands of years. Of course, today the Big Bang is almost a given in modern cosmology.
Second, he explained the six days of creation = the 13 – 15 billion years of the universe, by taking the Special Theory of Relatively into account and by starting the clock when Quantum Mechanics predicts it starts (the instant of quark confinement in the universe, or about one microsecond after the Big Bang).
Briefly — when the clock starts, the universe was extraordinarily tiny, and was expanding at velocities corresponding to large percentages of the speed of light. This is what modern cosmology holds. According to Dr. Schroeder, an observer at rest relative to the surface of the Earth would experience time differently than an observer traveling at much faster velocities (please note, the Earth does not have to exist, but its equivalent inertia frame). These time differentials correspond quite nicely to the Genesis account (he makes the case of how else would people at that time explain Einstein’s time dilations without Einstein and his calculus).
Of course, Dr. Schroeder explains it much better and fully references his sources. Much was over my head, but I remember at the time thinking “yeah, that makes sense.” Of course, it’s one of those things where he is such a good author it does make sense, but try to recall it years later…I probably made a bunch of errors representing his case.
Dr. Schroeder has written a few books, but I think I read this in his book “The Hidden Face of God.”
Heh, well admittedly most of this is way over my head, so yes, I do not quite understand either the physics of today or the cosmology of ancient people, much less how to correlate them or even if that is possible.
Although I hold to the view of modern cosmology, I do also understand that cosmology has a horrendous record of estimating the age of the universe (from eternal, to thousands of years old, to hundreds of trillions of years old, to today’s figure of about 13ish billion years old).
—
I fear I really butchered Dr. Schroeder’s points, so please do not hold that against him. There are some similarities with Dr. Russell Humphreys work (I have not read any of Dr. Humphreys’ works, but have read a summary of his analysis of the age of the universe and the critiques to his theory), but think the application of the Special Theory of Relativity is handled differently by Dr. Schroeder.
Dr. Schroeder discussed extensively about the need to understand the Torah — uhg — I forget the terms he used but he equated knowledge to science and wisdom to the Bible (something like that) and only by having both can a more…meaningful (?).. understanding of reality and G_d occur.
I know I am not doing justice to him, but perhaps your position is not as distant from his as you might think.
Of course, it could be more distant as well 😉
—
PS
I have no idea what Job 37:18 is about in terms of overall context, but will boldly venture this:
the sky / firmament is solid like brass – Job 37:18
and
Consider the density of the singularity at the moment of the Big Bang (something approaching infinity). That constitutes the entire universe and is indeed solid!
you are correct on Job 37:18; it’s just one verse of many that points to a pre-scientific cosmology for the OT and a polemic purpose for Gen 1-2.
Out of the list, these artifacts were the most curious to me, so thanks for posting on these!
Pons, thanks for your helpful analysis. One question, wouldn’t the efficacy of a random sample depend on the 32,000 being randomly arranged from the start?
My understanding is that Einstein became a theist because his friend Hubble showed him evidence from his telescope that the universe was expanding. He reasoned that it must have a beginning, and apparently was not impressed with the idea of eternal expansion and contraction.
Humphreys helped me understand gravitational time dilation, but that it was not enough differential to square the biblical account with the distances starlight has apparently traveled. His idea of a white hole creation spreading out of matter does though, if we accept the assumption that the earth is near the center of the mater of the universe. That would make us near the bottom of a universe-wide gravitational well.
Since modern cosmologists say they don’t know where the center of the universe is (or whether it has one), then they must admit they don’t know we are not near it. And if God really created the universe as the Bible says, then he started with the earth region (he didn’t make the stars until the 4th day). I argue we are rather dependent on revelation on such matters if we really want to know what happened and when.
Job refers to the sky ‘as a molten looking glass’, which is pretty descriptive. The Bible often uses picturesque language to describe the material world, but then also often uses precise description, like the next chapter (vs. 16) referring to ‘the springs of the sea’, which were not discovered until modern times.
Granted Genesis was written before modern times, and is thus a ‘pre-scientific cosomology’, but God, having true and perfect cosmology, would be able to use language faithful to the way he did it.
If God came to Stephen Hawking today and *really* described what it’s like to be a deity creator, it would be as wasted a conversation as it would have been millennia ago. If one assumes the biblical creation narrative, then it’s a simple scene — God decides to use people at XYZ time period to write down something for posterity that gives Him the proper theological credit for creation. Those people use the vocabulary and understanding they have — and they are capable of communicating the theological idea. This very simple construct only becomes a problem when we try to turn pre-scientific people into modern scientists (and then we kick them around for their scientific imprecisions!). Talk about a straw man.
There is a substantial body of evidence to indicate that the sky was a solid dome before Noah’s flood. It was a dome (or spherical layer) of water ice which contained the gaseous atmosphere inside it. We similar layering effects on the moons of the outer planets.
This dome would have produced all the “long-life” effects of the pre-flood Torah, along with allowing the giant animals of the fossil record to breathe (due to higher atmospheric pressure). When the dome was broken, the water ice would fall to earth and create the worldwide flood which was recognized by all ancient cultures.
The general rule is that when all (or nearly all) ancient cultures share a belief, it is very unlikely to be false. This holds for the fallen angels, the nephilim, the great flood, and even “the waters above and the waters below”.
no, there isn’t. A vapor canopy is, well, VAPOR (not solid). Vapor isn’t like cast metal (I can’t believe I have to explain that).
Thanks RayFR.
One question, wouldn’t the efficacy of a random sample depend on the 32,000 being randomly arranged from the start?
I think so — if there were say 31,180 genuine artifacts and 20 fakes, and if I arranged all the fakes to be spaced in a regular pattern, and then selected that pattern for my sample, then the results of the test would be a sham.
In this case however, I think the key term is random (from the study, my emphasis):
“A random sampling of twenty figurines from this collection was tested for a plateau; not one passed this essential test.”
The test, as stated, is valid (to my layman’s knowledge).
If an accusation of bad methodology is the question that is an entirely different issue. Logically, evidence would be needed to support such an accusation.
One of the reasons for peer review is to find these types of mistakes and present such evidence (something like, “hey, your sample is not really random because…”). As far as I know, nobody — including professional scientists — have raised such an issue with supporting evidence.
—
Interesting observation about Einstein — I will look into that, thanks,
Anonymous, I have to agree that the ‘frozen’ vapor canopy is an older view that has not held up with creationist scientists. Humphrey’s, et al, view replaced it by pointing out a much denser atmosphere prior to the flood would produce similar effects: a world-wide greenhouse, far more vegetation and higher oxygen content would enable the long necked dinosaurs to get enough oxygen, whereas with today’s ratios they could not grow to such great size. The hyperbaric atmosphere would also contribute to human longevity, but there are doubtless aspects of that environment we don’t know about.
As far as falling ice providing flood water, Genesis 7:11 indicates that the first thing that happened was not water fall, but that ‘all the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up’, which fits with the view that most of the water came from subterranean sources, the crust afterwards collapsing on the now empty reservoirs, and the consequent grinding and flowing producing huge amounts of sediment that settled into the ‘geologic column’.
On ‘waters above’, please see ‘Starlight and Time’ by Humphreys, whose dramatic view fits modern physics. He says it refers to a sphere of water at the outer edge of the material universe, enclosing it like a bubble. That makes the first heaven defined as from the surface of the earth to the inner edge of that bubble – Gen. 1:7. The second heaven is then conceived as space outside/beyond the bubble, often referred to in Scripture as the waters above the heavens, e.g. Ps. 148.4. That fits the biblical text perfectly, and gives more sense to other passages, such as that both sun, moon, and birds share the same firmament of heaven – Gen. 1:17, 20.
MSH, yes on Job 37:18, but what of 38:16, and other pre-scientific references to scientific realities that could only be known by revelation? God, having perfect understanding, would still use the language of the day to correctly describe physical realities. He does more than get the proper theological credit for creation – he tells it like it is/was. Most scientific ideas can be communicated realistically to nonscientific people. If God actually did it the way Genesis dictates, the events could be truly portrayed with the language used. He didn’t have to go in to the minute detail of the modern journal to communicate what really happened.
Re Stephen Hawking, what difference would the event being millennia ago make? Hawking’s advanced understanding of physics (in so far as it is correct) would only help him if he were talking with God, who, because Hawking would grasp more, could explain even more deeply how the language of Genesis fits actual physics.
Briefly – I don’t see anything in Job 38:16-18 that isn’t in line with pre-scientific ANE cosmologies – ? I’d like to see the water canopy defended by a physicist (ideally in a peer-reviewed journal, but I’d take something from another source that interacted with the writings of physicists). Regarding Hawking, my point is that he wouldn’t be talking to God as a peer — far from it. He can’t even convince everyone in his own field (or philosophers) in terms of his attempts to explain away a singularity point. For God to really explain to him how the universe ticks would be he’d still have to condescend quite a bit.
I agree there is nothing very bright about ANE cosmology, but thats beside my point. Job 38:16 isn’t referring to cosmology, but that there are springs in the sea. I was asserting that the Bible makes plainly understandable references to scientific realities that were not known at the time, and uses language that most anyone could understand. Modern scientific jargon is more precise, but major scientific concepts are not that hard to get across in common language.
Please note that I’m with you on the water canopy idea (see first paragraph of my previous post).
I like you’re saying that you would ‘take something from another source that interacted with the writings of physicists’ because it permits ideas and evidence outside the creationist-excluded journals.
Re Hawking, right that he would not be talking to God as a peer, and I’m not saying that Hawking could understand anything like God’s ultimate explanation of how he made the universe. Just that if God really did it as the language of Genesis says, then it would not be hard to relate it in language Hawking could grasp. For example, if God spelled it out for him, he could grasp that he really did it all in six solar days, and in the sequence stated.
Job 38:16 *is* ANE cosmology (you’ll find fountains of the deep in other ANE cosmologies, so this isn’t any science revelation, unless you want to say God revealed it to others). There are no “gates of death” (literally) in the deep sea, so that also tells us we’re dealing with pre-scientific cosmology.
I agree that God could get his point across to Hawking – since he was capable of doing so to people in the 2nd millennium BC.
The Dr. Hawkings conversation with God was an interesting concept. Perhaps it is like Hawkings trying to explain to an amoeba our modern concepts of cosmology.
By similar logic, the Ancient Creation beliefs might bear little substantive difference from the modern theories of cosmology — in terms of real understanding about the Creation.
A few thousand years from now, I wonder what scientists will make of our Creation beliefs — if they will try to correlate their cosmology with our beliefs.
—
I wonder too, if Job 38 was less about our ability to understand and more about the scope of knowledge and wisdom needed to understand. In other words, the Creation was neither trivial nor casual and for us humans, maybe it will take thousands of years just to learn enough to ask the proper questions.
Today, we puzzle over the Creation perhaps as much as the Ancients, and maybe we are not much closer to true understanding than they were, relative to the magnitude of the Creation.
In my lifetime, scientists have gone from believing in a static and eternal universe to one that is expanding and has a “start” date of about 13ish-billion-years ago. That understanding was further modified with recent discoveries of the expansion occurring at an accelerated rate. Today, modern cosmology encompasses a possibility of multiple universes (a multiverse). These theories are highly unlikely to endure in their present forms as so much is still unexplained by them.
The Ancients began the discussion and today we continue that discussion by searching for the secrets of Creation. Undoubtedly, we are far from answers. Such answers may not even be knowable in human terms (as Job 38 may imply), but we were made as curious beings with an instinctive drive to explore, so maybe we were made that way for a reason.
Just possibly such knowledge might be in our domain, but with a commitment of thousands of generations needed, along with an intact and viable desire to prize such knowledge over such a long time span (this implies a moral people).
—
Almost certainly, modern cosmology is replete with flaws and incomplete with large gaps of knowledge — and to correlate it with Ancient Creation beliefs is folly, yet the idea that a kernel of truth might exist in the Old Beliefs is strangely compelling. Long shot for certain, but just maybe…
MSH, I’m just ignorant of the fountains of the great deep (or springs of the sea) being mentioned in other ANE writings, and would like to read about it, if you will. There are some cases where God revealed things not otherwise knowable to a non-Israelite, so I suppose its possible he could reveal something about the nature of the structure of the earth to a nation that did not know him. Maybe in keeping with his frustrating the wisdom of the wise.
By pre-scientific, do you understand that someone, say Moses, could not conceptualize (generally) how God actually brought the earth and its living creatures in to being? Though we can’t grasp God’s power to generate matter by his word, it seems we could observe it coming in to being and get a measure of genuine comprehension, even without formal training in physics.
As to ‘the gates of death’ it seems clear to me he has changed subjects (we are no more in the sea), so that now he is pointing out how men don’t really have much clue as to what it means to enter in to the state of death. That this is picturesquely called a gate ought not put us off, because it is a plain way of referring to it. It is not the kind of thing you can touch, but is no less a real phenomenon. So that ‘getting his point across’ might involve more than just certifying he is creator. Isn’t that why Genesis gives a fairly detailed laying out of how he did it rather than just saying he did it?
Pons, but the amoeba, not being made in God’s image, can’t think conceptually at all. We are capable of understanding things like God does, though of course not at all so well. Otherwise there could be no communication between God and us.
I’d say it need not take thousands of years for us to get a basic grip on what really happened at creation – we can safely accept his words as having real meaning relating to how he did it.
You note that recent discoveries show the universe has expanded at an accelerated rate. According to Humphrey’s white hole cosmology, the event horizon closed in on our earth region during the creation week, which now permits us to see even very distant stars.
You remark that ‘Undoubtedly, we are far from answers’, but if God gave an accurate description of how he did it, then in Genesis we have factual answers. Granted the description could be expanded, but we ought to respect what God says, and accept it as the frame of what really happened. Then we wouldn’t need thousands of generations to understand at least the basics.
You’re right he made us curious beings – we enjoy it because exploring is part of the creation mandate to subdue the earth (scientific endeavor is an outworking of this). Still plenty left to explore!
There are a number of good treatments of Israelite cosmology and its ANE background. An older scholarly monograph on this is Stadelmann’s, The Hebrew Conception of the World (http://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Conception-World-Philological-Literary/dp/0829403132/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280644629&sr=1-1). A good place to start.
What I mean by pre-scientific is that the OT describes God moving people who lived in the second millennium BC (or a bit later) to write things down in what has become known to us as the Bible. God did not give these people advanced scientific information to assist them in what they wrote. It is therefore perfectly understandable that biblical characters and content cite the stomach, liver, intestines, or heart as the seat of emotions and intellect (they didn’t know it was the brain that did that); or that a woman’s hair had something to do with fecundity (see My Naked Bible post on this one – about the head covering in 1 Cor 11); or that generations of people were “in the loins” of their father (Hebrews 7:4-10; no person — a union of material flesh and immaterial “soul” — resides in a man — sperm, which resides in a man, does not have the full genetic information of ANY ancestor — but sperm is not a person — it has to unite with a female egg so that we get a full human genetic entity — this is simple genetics and biology). To say the biblical characters are familiar with modern science is to leave them open to completely unnecessary criticism.
Thanks for the direction to Stadelmann’s work. I couldn’t find an ebook of it, but a used paper copy is about $30. Does he see the Bible as inspired by God, or just the product of a particular (in this case, the Hebrew) nation? Not to be contrary, but does he think a particular nation’s uninspired cosmology would have to be used by God – couldn’t God set them straight?
You remark that, ‘God did not give these people advanced scientific information to assist them in what they wrote.’, and your examples made me think. It’s true that the Bible sometimes speaks poetically, depending on the author’s intention, but we ought give it the same license as any great work of literature. Sometimes it may speak figuratively (just as we today refer to the heart as the seat of the emotions) but it doesn’t mean we can’t speak more strictly if we want to. It depends on our purpose: there is sometimes more power in poetical expression than in the literal. Shouldn’t we, especially if we regard the Bible as ultimately God’s work, be led by the context and intent, without a preconceived limit on what God might reveal?
Please help me find your post on 1Cor. 11. I searched for it in various ways using your search engine but did no good.
That _is_ a curious concept about people being “in the loins” of their ancestors. And its true that the mother’s genetic input completes the body. But rather than say an ignorant concept is being put forward, I would say maybe there is something more we don’t understand about the transfer of being from one generation to the next. The Bible asserts all men really descend from Adam, and are also somehow infected by his sin.
And I don’t mean to say biblical characters are familiar with modern science, but just that God can communicate with scientific accuracy in common language, whether his writer fully understood it or not.
This isn’t “poetry that doesn’t state a real belief” – it’s poetry (or prose) that states a real belief. Saying things are poetical to escape the worldview of the ancients is a cop-out (and a bad one at that). And we know where babies come from — so deeply in fact that the entire process can be reproduced outside the womb. If one believes (sincerely, without lip service) that God is the author of truth in the natural world and any revealed truth outside the natural world (i.e., the Bible) then that rules out making up “special science” that accommodates the other side (or vice versa). The data is true or not, and if the same source produced both, there is NO NEED to fudge on either side.
On 1 Cor 11, send me an email and I will send you the original article that the post was about.
RayFR Says:
“Pons, but the amoeba, not being made in God’s image, can’t think conceptually at all. We are capable of understanding things like God does, though of course not at all so well. Otherwise there could be no communication between God and us.”
True RayFR, I was (clumsily) trying to make the point: God is infinite in terms of knowledge and intelligence (there is nothing He does not know), whereas humans are not. In these terms, the difference between an amoeba and human is metaphorically comparable to the difference between a human and God — only worse because when God is invoked, we are dealing with infinite terms. Our level of conception is absent in the amoeba, as you correctly pointed out, just as God’s level of omnipotence is absent in us (I do agree with your analysis about communication).
“I’d say it need not take thousands of years for us to get a basic grip on what really happened at creation – we can safely accept his words as having real meaning relating to how he did it.”
Respectfully, I think it has taken thousands of years to grasp the basics. For example, we would not debate the spherical shape of the Earth, the heliocentric Solar System, or the expanding universe — today. Yet, a few centuries ago, we would perhaps debate these ideas, with either one of us citing the Bible as proof-positive (i.e., the Word of God) that such notions are false. All of these ideas took thousands of years to be discovered — centuries of math, logic, and science slowing developing (I mean look how long it took the Western world to accept the concept of Zero).
We cannot objectively say with any certainty what scientific truths the Bible might contain (as proven by history) nor can we define with certainty what those scientific truths are (also proven by history).
—
I am not sure if Job 38 means such knowledge is beyond our abilities to understand, or if it means such knowledge can be learned, but only with great effort. In any event, the scope of knowledge about the Creation is enormous (either from a scientific or religious perspective). Doubtful it is contained in the brief verses of the Bible (or in any other ancient manuscript), but maybe, as you suggested, there is some sort of basic idea (perhaps we might quibble to what degree).
With that said, to me, it does appear to me that Genesis contains a kernel of truth about the Creation. In particular, there was a beginning (“In The Beginning”) and there was a time dilation relative to today (Six days = all the Ages of the Universe).
Given the validity of the Big Bang and the Special Theory of Relativity, for me, it is just too irresistible to not find a correlation between the opening verses of Genesis and these two theories.
Of course, the “Earth-is-the-Center-of-the-Universe” guys probably believed in their biblical interpretations and contemporary science just as strongly too.
Is there even a way to objectively judge either the science or the Biblical passages, much less evaluate a relationship between them that has not yet been definitely proven to even exist? At the risk of overloading my ability at metaphors, it is a bit like looking at a white piece of paper and saying, “Wow, look at that picture of the polar bear in the snowstorm!”
—
Note: on the time dilation — the inertia frame of an individual observing at the Beginning versus the inertia frame of an individual standing at rest on the surface of the Earth would be about 16 billion years (at 4:58) versus six days (just a touch off, with 13.7 billion yearscurrently supported by NASA, as the age of the universe).
Pons, true that humans are not infinite in knowledge and intelligence, but isn’t our knowing different in kind (rather than degree) from an amoeba’s? I understand this imperfectly, but humans are made in God’s image so that our faculty of ‘knowing’ is greater than any lower creature. I think it is related to our self awareness. We have more self to be aware of. No other creature (except angels) can talk with God. And we are said to be a little lower than the angels (Heb. 2:7).
As to our taking thousands of years to grasp the basics, few of the ancients held to anything but a spherical earth – it was easily discerned from watching a ship mast slowly disappear over the horizon, then reappear on return. When the Bible is thought to teach geocentricity it is from judging it unfairly – it ought to be given at least the latitude we would give some other book. When our modern (scientist) meteorologist refers to sunrise we don’t say he is showing his ignorance. He can speak more precisely if he wants, and we should give God the same license, depending on his purpose. There are at least eleven places where the Bible refers to God spreading out or stretching the heavens.
You say, ‘We cannot objectively say with any certainty what scientific truths the Bible might contain (as proven by history) nor can we define with certainty what those scientific truths are (also proven by history).’ but exactly why can we not do this? Isn’t the Bible referring to a scientific truth when it refers to God hanging the earth upon nothing (Job 26:7)? Doesn’t Ecc. 1:7 state the hydrologic cycle with lucid brevity?
‘…the scope of the knowledge about the Creation is enormous’ – Yes, and I’m not saying the Bible is a science textbook (it has a larger purpose), but that, because God inspired it, when it refers didactically to the natural world it can be trusted.
True that the Bible refers factually to a beginning, but how do you relate its statement of six days to the ages of the universe? One way (to me) that it shows regular days is that there is an evening and morning to each. Other verses in the Bible that talk about the creation account also indicate they were regular days, e.g., Ex. 20:11 ‘For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is …’. In Mark 10:6 Jesus said, ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’.
As to Earth being near the center of the universe, modern atheistic cosmologists admit they don’t know where the center is, or even if it has one, so how do they know we are not at least near it? With God we have an inside man on how it really happened, and are not dependent on the changing pronouncements of our current scientists – not that we by definition discount them, but should count God’s words as more sure.
As far as objectively judging, ultimately we can’t. Objectivity means judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices but we have to decide for ourselves the meaning of what is being observed – whether it compels a particular conclusion. We carry a world view within ourselves that prevents absolute objectivity. You either wear biblical glasses, or you get your authority for meaning elsewhere. To me the opinions of men are fallible, shortsighted and changeable, and can not rightly be put above God’s revelation in the Bible.
Doesn’t your remark on inertial frames assume the validity of their being billions of years of development of the cosmos? ‘13.7 billion currently supported by NASA’ reminds me of the sign at Carlsbad Caverns about the age of the formations in the canyons: from 1924 to 1988, there was a sign above the entrance to Carlsbad Caverns that said Carlsbad was at least 260 million years old. In 1988, the sign was changed to read 7 to 10 million years old. Then, for a little while, the sign read that it was 2 million years old. Now the sign is gone.
MSH, I didn’t mean to say that biblical poetry does not state a real belief, but that we need to discern its intention correctly. With God being it’s ultimate author, we ought to be open to his showing us more than man would know by his own limited ability. The phrase ‘fountains of the great deep’ is majestic but is also plainly referring to a physical reality unseen (at the time) by man. When the Bible says someone was still in the loins of his ancestor we know it is referring to more than the mechanics of reproduction: instead of noting what it doesn’t say (it doesn’t discuss the contribution of the mother to the physical being of the child), we learn that there is more about reproduction than meets the eye: yes, the Bible acknowledges we physically proceed from our ancestors, but here it remarks on a higher truth: that we are represented in them. Elsewhere it says we all sinned in Adam. True that we can put sperm and egg together in a test tube, but there is much deeper significance to human reproduction we don’t understand on our own. Scientific knowledge is not the only realm of knowledge, and even scientific knowledge is a subset of God’s knowledge (and cannot be contrary to it, or his revelation). Sometimes science corrects itself, when it becomes aware of it’s mistakes, but God knows all.
Saying the Bible refers to scientific realities is not pleading a ‘special science’. Facts are the same whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist. It is their interpretation which is debated through world view glasses. But the Bible warns that men really do know enough to get them in trouble ‘…that which can be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made …’ – Rom. 1:19-20.
After searching (maybe not enough) I couldn’t find an email address on your home page – please relay it to me.
RayFR Says:
I understand this imperfectly, but humans are made in God’s image so that our faculty of ‘knowing’ is greater than any lower creature.
Comparing a finite creature like a human to an infinite being like God, overestimates humanity when metaphorically comparing a human to a fellow finite creature like an amoeba. It is like comparing the number 5 to infinity versus comparing the number 1,000,000 to infinity; the ratio is the same (in finite terms anyway).
We seem to agree on a potential hierarchy of Creation (God, humans, animals, plants), but appear to disagree on the gap between God and humanity: IMHO it is at best enormous (beyond reckoning) or at worst infinite (as in the ratios stated above).
If I may:
You see God talking to Dr Hawking, as comparable to Dr Hawking talking to an unlearned person.
I see God talking to Dr Hawking, as comparable to Dr Hawking talking to an amoeba (only worse).
Certainly, I do not know which is more accurate, and I do think either case is reasonable, but my guess is that the knowledge gap between Creator and the created (even ones as vaunted as ourselves) is staggering and therefore probably better represented by the second case, IMHO.
—
As to our taking thousands of years to grasp the basics, few of the ancients held to anything but a spherical earth – it was easily discerned from watching a ship mast slowly disappear over the horizon, then reappear on return. When the Bible is thought to teach geocentricity it is from judging it unfairly – it ought to be given at least the latitude we would give some other book. When our modern (scientist) meteorologist refers to sunrise we don’t say he is showing his ignorance. He can speak more precisely if he wants, and we should give God the same license, depending on his purpose. There are at least eleven places where the Bible refers to God spreading out or stretching the heavens.
Aristotle stipulated a geocentric universe over 2,200 years ago. This belief was the state of the art in Western Science as a matter of fact and doctrine, for several centuries. The Church did punish those that espoused a heliocentric universe.
We are in agreement that it was unfair for some humans to assume the Bible taught otherwise (or that the Bible even commented on the subject) and that was my point.
The image of God has nothing to do with intelligence. For the conservative Christian, that is a VERY dangerous position. Why? Because of the linkage of personhood to the image. If the image = intelligence, then the conceptus is not a person (and frankly nothing in the womb would be a person until brain development — and even that could be debated). This also fails to consider artificial intelligence and animal cognition (a whole subfield within psychology — e.g., how chickens can score better than toddlers on intelligence tests — I recommend reading in this area to all of you – it’s fascinating, and even funny at times). Assigning ANY ability (or body part) to the image is devastating for the ethical standards maintained by the conservative Christian community (abortion, end of life issues, severe retardation). It’s the death-knell for Christian ethics.
RayFR Says:
As to Earth being near the center of the universe, modern atheistic cosmologists admit they don’t know where the center is, or even if it has one, so how do they know we are not at least near it?
Given the current understanding of the Big Bang Theory, there is no controversy among modern cosmologists regarding the center of the universe. The universe started out as an infinitesimally small point — not in space, but containing all space (and time, matter, energy, gravity, etc). Our universe did not explode, but simply expanded.
Since our universe started as an infinitesimally small point, then by definition it was dimensionless — infinitesimally small means no width, height or length (think of a sphere with a radius of zero). There was no center, as all “points” were collapsed upon each other and then space expanded. It may be equally valid to think of every point in the universe as the “center” point.
There was no explosion even though that metaphor is often used often by scientists explaining the birth of the universe to the public at large. Remember the term “Big Bang” was a derogatory label designed to discredit those scientists who challenged the notion that the universe was not eternal (as Aristotle stipulated) but had a beginning. The Big Bang gained widespread scientific acceptance in the 1960’s.
RayFR Says:
With God we have an inside man on how it really happened, and are not dependent on the changing pronouncements of our current scientists – not that we by definition discount them, but should count God’s words as more sure.
Well sure, but that is exactly the problem: What are “God’s words” as they might relate to the science of Creation and is such science even in the Bible? Dr Heiser is a scholar (M.A., Ancient History and M.A., Ph.D., Hebrew Bible and Semitic Studies) and he started this whole thread and was quite unfavorable to this idea. You and I could toss back Bible verses and argue their scientific meanings but in the end, it is open to interpretation-mistakes. Historically, that has led to faulty conclusions (see link above).
And of course, modern science is not even certain on all the aspects of creation — we could easily be arguing over differing aspects of unicorn-equivalents and citing biblical verses to “prove” our various points.
—
As to your larger point, that science might be wrong — totally agree. As you pointed out, the age of the universe has been held to different values by science in any given century. Probably, indeed almost certainly, the current age of the universe will be revised.
FWIW:
In general terms, my own personal belief is that two scientific concepts might correlate to the Creation verses of the Bible:
a) The universe was created — Big Bang theory.
b) Six Days = all the ages of the universe — time dilation.
That is just pure speculation on my part and I disclosed it as a matter of honesty, so you know precisely my biases. I freely admit it may be flawed (indeed the time dilation is a bit off as the universe would need to be about 16 billion years old to fit perfectly), but so far, the general scientific concepts are sound.
(And to clarify, the Age of the Universe has different values depending on the methods used to determine the age– some estimates are in excess of 15 billion years).
Of course, my understanding of the relevant science or biblical verses might be flawed, and even if they are not, science itself might prove its own current Laws of Relativity as being incorrect, which could affect the Big Bang Theory and the Age of the Universe — all in one swoop. And even with all that resolved in my favor, I am still only talking about a broadly defined correlation which may be coincidental.
Resolving verses in the Bible to our strongest-held science is an act of faith as neither can be known in absolute terms.
RayFR Says:
Pons and MSH, sorrow for so long in replying (I now have a new laptop, as the last one did not pass the drop test).
As to what God’s words are as they might relate to science, the answer is the same as they would relate to any other subject. The doctrine is the perspicuity, or clearness, of the Bible. God can speak clearly about anything, even on science issues, and he doesn’t have to use modern jargon to point out a particular scientific reality. True that you don’t get a detailed description of the assembly of dna, but you do get a lot of broader treatments of issues of scientific importance. The ancients did not have our detailed knowledge, but could still make truthful descriptions of physical reality. And God, who knows all, can give lucid descriptions of supernaturally known scientific realities using their language.
I appreciate that Dr. Heiser is a scholar, and I read him carefully, but to say things are open to interpretation cannot be a determining factor if you use it to make the Bible of no effect. Words and contexts have meaning – God is not mumbling. The problem with the Bible is not that it is unclear, but that it is uncomfortably clear.
And we are talking pretty basic space and time stuff, not unicorns.
You’re probably right that the age of the universe has been/will be revised by those who try to estimate it by the latest theories, but the Bible gives a straightforward account from an infallible observer.
Re the statement,
‘Resolving verses in the Bible to our strongest-held science is an act of faith as neither can be known in absolute terms.’
Why can’t a verse in the Bible be known in absolute terms?
MSH,
Just because someone’s intelligence is not manifested, or damaged, does that mean intelligence is not one aspect of the image of God? It is a characteristic of God’s Spirit. And the human body gets respect because it is made by him to house his Spirit, whether that body is damaged or not.
What is your sense in which man is made in God’s image?
I’m not even really sure just what this comment was about.
My view of the image of God is the functional view — that the image is not a thing (quality) within humans; rather humans ARE the image, functioning as God’s representatives on earth. My view is based on a point of Hebrew grammar in the text, as well as the fact that attaching any internal capacity to the image means that humans do not “have” the image at conception (and “potentially” having X which is the image simply means being only “potentially” human – very ethically dangerous view). I see no evidence for an incremental image in the text.
RayFR Says:
Pons and MSH, sorrow for so long in replying (I now have a new laptop, as the last one did not pass the drop test).
As to what God’s words are as they might relate to science, the answer is the same as they would relate to any other subject. The doctrine is the perspicuity, or clearness, of the Bible. God can speak clearly about anything, even on science issues, and he doesn’t have to use modern jargon to point out a particular scientific reality. True that you don’t get a detailed description of the assembly of dna, but you do get a lot of broader treatments of issues of scientific importance. The ancients did not have our detailed knowledge, but could still make truthful descriptions of physical reality. And God, who knows all, can give lucid descriptions of supernaturally known scientific realities using their language.
I appreciate that Dr. Heiser is a scholar, and I read him carefully, but to say things are open to interpretation cannot be a determining factor if you use it to make the Bible of no effect. Words and contexts have meaning – God is not mumbling. The problem with the Bible is not that it is unclear, but that it is uncomfortably clear.
And we are talking pretty basic space and time stuff, not unicorns.
You’re probably right that the age of the universe has been/will be revised by those who try to estimate it by the latest theories, but the Bible gives a straightforward account from an infallible observer.
Re the statement,
‘Resolving verses in the Bible to our strongest-held science is an act of faith as neither can be known in absolute terms.’
Why can’t a verse in the Bible be known in absolute terms?
MSH,
Just because somone’s intelligence is not manifested or damaged does that mean intelligence is not one aspect of the image of God? It is a characteristic of God’s Spirit. And the human body gets respect because it is made by him to house his Spirit, whether that body is damaged or not.
What is your sense in which man is made in God’s image?
Also, I’d still like to read your view on 1Cor. if you would give me your email address, or send me a note by mine.
what about 1 Cor?
“RayFR:
(I now have a new laptop, as the last one did not pass the drop test).”
I had one of those too!
“Why can’t a verse in the Bible be known in absolute terms?”
In the context of knowing scientific truths, I believe there are two problems:
a) Science knows the absolute terms of few things. There are few scientific laws and many theories (and even the “laws” our often overturned given enough time — look at Newton’s Laws of Gravity). So, even if an absolute scientific truth was present in the Bible, how would we know it as such if our own science cannot cannot confirm it in absolute terms?
b) The Bible’s scientific knowledge (if such is even present) is completely determined by interpretation. In the Bible, there are zero explicit scientific expositions — only the interpretations can lend themselves to a scientific theory, which is eminently debatable, hardly an absolute term.
—
For me, Shakespeare sums it up quite nicely:
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
RayFR, our opinions differ on these matters, but it has been most enjoyable discussing these things with you.
Mr. Heiser, i’ve seen a seminar about those figurines, by dr. Patton, archeologist, who did documented investigation about those, along with other archeologists. He is convinced, that they really are old figurines, bringing some logic arguments and conclusions. I hate crazy vondanikenish stories, but that one, though pretty unbelievable indeed, is not so simple to debunk.
This seminar of dr. Patton is on youtube – “12 Witnesses to the Figurines of Acámbaro”
Dating can be fixed, logic conclusions can not
I don’t know why dinosaurs couldn’t live together with people, they are not magical creatures, just big reptiles, like crocodiles. Are crocodiles hard to believe?
wrong – logic is invalid if the data is incorrect. I’m not sure why that isn’t clear to you, as premises are made on the basis of data, and conclusions follow.