Why can’t they see their hypocrisy?

Many Christians have been belittled for believing in Biblical creation. One criticism often leveled at us is that we are merely laymen and so are not qualified to competently judge the theory of evolution. Any criticism we make against the theory is only our lay opinion and is therefore not worthy of any serious consideration.

A few months back, I came across one staunch evolutionist who was making this very point. He waxed on about the many thousands of scientists who have dedicated their careers to studying evolution and that it was arrogance on the part of non-scientists to reject their conclusions as though we understand better than they. This particular evolutionist went on to ask what other subject exists where the opinions of lay people are given consideration over the opinions of people who are experts in the subject.

He seemed to be asking the question rhetorically thinking the answer was obvious. He believed there is no other subject where people with no formal training in a subject would boldly put forth opinions that contradicted the conclusions of experts of the subject. Much to his embarrassment, I suggested one: people who are not studied in the Bible feel perfectly qualified to criticize the Bible. They smugly rebuff and deride the conclusions of thousands of theologians who have dedicated their lives to the study of the Bible. The entire extent of these critics’ research may be nothing more than using a Google search yet they are thoroughly convinced the Bible is rife with errors, Christianity is a sham, and there is no God.

It seems to me they want to have it both ways. They want to condemn creationists as lay people who are not qualified to judge the truthfulness of evolution. Yet they feel they are perfectly able to judge the truthfulness of the Bible even though they may not be formally trained in theology. People who use this argument paint themselves into a proverbial corner. They need to either acknowledge that people can have opinions (even correct opinions) in subjects they are not formally trained in OR they need to stop criticizing the Bible or Christianity until they receive formal training on the subject. Which is it going to be?

But their hypocrisy doesn’t end there. If they believe non-scientist creationists are not qualified to judge their theory, what makes a non-scientist evolutionist qualified to judge his own theory? If I – as a non-scientist – cannot judge their theory false, then neither can a non-scientist judge the theory true! Alas, no. It doesn’t work that way. To them, people who reject evolution are ignorant fools and people who accept evolution are enlightened thinkers. Acceptance or rejection of the theory is the only test required; no one need demonstrate how well they actually understand the theory.

Let’s review this just for the sake of clarity: some evolutionists dismiss creationist arguments because they feel non-scientists aren’t qualified to judge the truthfulness of the theory. However, these evolutionists themselves aren’t scientists yet feel they are perfectly qualified to judge both the truthfulness of their own theory AND the truthfulness of the Bible (which they also have no training in). It seems there’s a pot-kettle dilemma going on.

Nor thorns infest the ground

As I discussed in some previous posts, I really enjoy listening to Christ-centered Christmas music. An oldie but goodie is the classic hymn, “Joy to the World.” It’s one of my favorites but I admit my ignorance when, while watching the video on YouTube, I heard the following stanza:

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.

As often as I’ve heard that song, I can’t remember ever hearing that stanza. It’s a wonderful bit of doctrine. This song was written in 1719 by Isaac Watts – long before the influence of Lyell or Darwin. During Watts’ time, the overwhelming majority of Christians were (what would now be called) young-earth creationists. It was not until the 19^th century that Christians began to allow the ideas of secular science to influence our understanding of Scripture. It was then that many Christians began adding millions of years to Genesis.

From a purely doctrinal perspective, one problem with on old earth is that of theodicy. Nearly any belief in an old earth necessarily involves the idea that God created death, disease, pain, and suffering before the Sin and Fall of Adam. An old earth would be what called “very good” in Genesis 1:31. It’s hard to imagine why a benevolent, sovereign God would spend billions of years creating a world full of cancer, carnivory, and carnage when His objective is to create a “very good” paradise for man to possess.

The Bible is clear that the original creation was perfect. There was no death before Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12). Thorns, for example, are the result of God’s curse on the creation (Genesis 3:17-19) – not an intentional adornment in God’s plan to build a “very good” creation.

There will come a day when God will create a new heaven and earth. Revelation 22:3 says there will be “no more curse” in that day. Isaiah 11 describes a world where the “wolf will lay down with the lamb” and where the “lion shall eat straw like an ox.” This harkens back to the perfect creation described in Genesis 1:29-30 when animals did not eat each other but all were herbivorous.

I sometimes wonder what “no more curse” means to those Christians who ascribe an old age to the creation. To what will the creation be restored? Do they believe it will simply revert back to death and bloodshed that supposedly prevailed for billions of years before Adam? That is not a paradise worth looking forward to.

Merry Christmas

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

Popular Misconceptions about the Nativity

I confess that I own a nativity scene. Every Christmas, it is really the only decoration I really look forward to setting up. I think I might enjoy the nativity more than the tree – though perhaps it’s simply because decorating the tree involves a lot more work. But even though I enjoy setting out my nativity, I know that it’s not a very accurate depiction of The Nativity. In fact, many people’s conception about the nativity is simply not accurate. In this post, I’d like to bring up a few of the more enduring misconceptions surrounding the nativity.

Let’s start with the trip to Bethlehem. The Christmas card image of Joseph walking through the desert at night, leading Mary as she rides on a donkey isn’t mentioned anywhere in Scripture. Since the purpose of the journey was a census, all of Joseph’s and Mary’s family should have traveled with them to Bethlehem. They would have been with Mary when she delivered Jesus. Where are they in the nativities? Did neither Mary nor Joseph have any living relatives (parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers, or sisters) that would have made the trip with them? All of these family members would have been of the house of David (Luke 2:4) just as Mary and Joseph were and so would have been required to travel to Bethlehem.

The young couple did not necessarily arrive in Bethlehem the very night Jesus was born as is often depicted in film. The Bible merely says that she delivered Jesus “while they were there” (Luke 2:6). However, the Bible does say that Jesus was laid into a manger (Luke 2:7) which strongly suggests Joseph and Mary were staying with the animals when He was born. It would be reasonable to assume they could not have been in the town very long or they probably would have found more suitable lodgings after a while.

The shepherds were told of Jesus’ birth by the angel (Luke 2:10). The angel had given the shepherds a sign to identify Jesus – He would be the baby lying in a manger (Luke 2:12). So the shepherds went into town to find a baby lying in a manger. The Bible doesn’t mention a star pointing the shepherds the way to Jesus. Certainly a star pointing out the place where He lay would have made Him a lot easier to find Yet Luke 2 doesn’t mention a star at all. I don’t believe there was any star in the sky (see my previous discussion on the Star of Bethlehem).

Concerning the wise men, the most enduring notion is that there were three wise men. Nowhere does the Bible tell us how many wise men there were. IT’S NOT THERE. The idea that there were three perhaps stems from the fact that three different gifts are mentioned: gold, frankincense, and myrrh (see my discussion of the wise men).

But furthermore, there is a great misconception about when the wise men appeared to worship Jesus. Think about this for a moment: Luke 2:21-23 tells us that Jesus was circumcised when He was eight days old. Later, Mary took Him to the temple in Jerusalem after the “days of her purification.” According to the Law of Moses, the purification for women after bearing a male child was forty days. So, according to Luke, Mary took Jesus to the Temple in Jerusalem forty days after delivering Him. However, Matthew 2:12-14 says that after the wise men departed, the Angel of the Lord warned Joseph to flee to Egypt and Joseph immediately (when he rose) fled that night to Egypt with Jesus and Mary. Now how can these two accounts possibly be reconciled if the wise men visited Jesus the night of His birth?

The simple fact is that the wise men did not arrive to worship Jesus until much later after His birth – perhaps as long as two years after His birth. Matthew tells us that Herod ordered all children under two years old to be murdered according to the time the wise men told him the star had appeared to them (Matthew 2:16). Also, there is the much overlooked mention that the wise men entered a “house” (Matthew 2:11) – not a stable or some such place. Certainly, the wise men were not next to the shepherds by the manger adoring the Savior. And while we’re at it, the Bible doesn’t mention anything about how the wise men traveled – nary is a camel mentioned.

Many of our cherished images of that blessed night are inaccurate. But I am no Scrooge. I know the event happened even if we are a little fuzzy on the details. I think the few facts we do know are sufficient – namely this:

… the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

Further reading:

Misquoted Bible Verses