Sunspots 950

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to others*

Environment: A Conversation writer discusses making forests less susceptible to fires.

Health: (Or something) Gizmodo reports that the US is running low on laxatives, probably, in part, because of TikTok influencers. Really.

TheScientist discusses chronic itch -- lasting for months, maybe years.

NPR reports on populations that live for a long time, and why.

A Conversation article tells us why fevers are (usually) good for us.

Science: Gizmodo reports that some Italian scientists say that they have produced a human embryo, from stem cells, not from a normal fertilized egg. They say that this is an ethical procedure. No doubt there will be questions about that.

TheScientist reports on a study that describes what makes mouse hairs turn gray with age.

ScienceAlert reports that elephants may name each other with sound patterns.

*I try not to include items that require a password or fee to view

Thanks for reading.

With Christ in the school of prayer, by Andrew Murray, excerpt 195

This post continues a series of excerpts from With Christ in the School of Prayer, by Andrew Murray. I do this, not because I'm a powerful prayer warrior, but because I'm not. Murray was. I thank the Christian Classics Ethereal Library for making this public domain work available. To see their post of the book, go here. His book is based on Mark 11:22-24. The previous post in this series is here. As usual in this blog, long quotations are in this color. Murray's book is based on Mark 11:22-24.

We see thus that everything depends on our own relation to the Name: the power it has on my life is the power it will have in my prayers. There is more than one expression in Scripture which can make this clear to us. When it says, ‘Do all in the Name of the Lord Jesus,’ we see how this is the counterpart of the other, ‘Ask all.’ To do all and to ask all in His Name, these go together. When we read, ‘We shall walk in the Name of our God,’ we see how the power of the Name must rule in the whole life; only then will it have power in prayer. It is not to the lips but to the life God looks to see what the Name is to us. When Scripture speaks of ‘men who have given their lives for the Name of the Lord Jesus,’ or of one ‘ready to die for the Name of the Lord Jesus,’ we see what our relation to the Name must be: when it is everything to me, it will obtain everything for me. If I let it have all I have, it will let me have all it has.
‘WHATSOEVER ye shall ask in my Name, that will I do.’ Jesus means the promise literally. Christians have sought to limit it: it looked too free; it was hardly safe to trust man so unconditionally. We did not understand that the word ‘in my Name’ is its own safeguard. It is a spiritual power which no one can use further than he obtains the capacity for, by his living and acting in that Name. As we bear that Name before men, we have power to use it before God. O let us plead for God’s Holy Spirit to show us what the Name means, and what the right use of it is. It is through the Spirit that the Name, which is above every name in heaven, will take the place of supremacy in our heart and life too.

Sunspots 949

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to others*

Health: PsyPost reports on a study that indicates that internet use protects significantly from dementia.

Science: The Indian moon exploration has found Sulfur at the lunar South Pole, according to Gizmodo. (The article used both "sulfur" and "sulphur.")

Gizmodo also reports that a pig kidney, inserted into a human, has functioned for six weeks, and is still functioning.

And Gizmodo reports that an amateur astronomer reported a collision between Jupiter and a much smaller body.

*I try not to include items that require a password or fee to view

Thanks for reading.

Is Genesis straightforward historical narrative? Genesis 1 and 2

The Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith says, in part: “The account of origins presented in Genesis 1–11 is a simple but factual presentation of actual events, and therefore, provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.” … and “The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages but are six consecutive, 24-hour days of creation; …”

Two previous posts (genre, and culture) on this blog describe the effect of genre, and of the culture of the writers, and listeners/readers, in ancient times, on what the Bible communicates. Those effects, and other reasons, indicate that Genesis 1-2, in particular, is not simple, and does not necessarily communicate consecutive events. 

 

Let’s consider the questions of simplicity and of consecutive events.

 

Genesis 1 puts the creation of humans, male and female, on Day 6. If Genesis 2 does, it doesn’t do so simply. Adam comes at the beginning, and Eve at the end, in chapter 2. It is possible to reconcile these accounts on this point, but, to do so, one must depart from a “plain reading of scripture.*” Genesis 1 also puts land plants in day 3, before the creation of humans, whereas Genesis 2 seems to put Adam before the plants. Genesis 1 puts the creation of animals on day 6, whereas Genesis 2 appears to put that creation after the appearance of Adam. Answers in Genesis, and others, believe that Genesis 2:19 should be translated to say that God “had formed” -- already done it -- before presenting the animals to Adam. Perhaps, but only four of the Bible versions given in the Blueletter Bible say that. The other thirteen say “formed,” as if it happened as they were presented to Adam. One of the four that says “had formed” gives “formed" as an alternate reading.

There are many God-fearing, Christ-believing Bible scholars who are convinced that Genesis 1 and 2 were not intended to be step-by-step historical narrative, and/or who do not think that their purpose was to establish the timing of creation. Listen to N. T. Wright, for one.

There are other reasons for doubting that Genesis 1 and 2 were meant to give us a step-by-step historical narrative of the creation. God willing, I shall continue this series.

Answers in Genesis zealously defends the Bible, if the Bible needs any defense, but they propose at least one really strange idea of how to look at the Bible.

*Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, “Pausing for a Leaven warning,” March 2, 2023, writes “we should always be suspicious when the secular world proclaims anything at odds with a plain reading of Scripture.” That phrase, “plain reading of scripture,” is claimed as the foundation of Answers in Genesis, the most influential young-earth entity.

With Christ in the school of prayer, by Andrew Murray, excerpt 194

This post continues a series of excerpts from With Christ in the School of Prayer, by Andrew Murray. I do this, not because I'm a powerful prayer warrior, but because I'm not. Murray was. I thank the Christian Classics Ethereal Library for making this public domain work available. To see their post of the book, go here. His book is based on Mark 11:22-24. The previous post in this series is here. As usual in this blog, long quotations are in this color. Murray's book is based on Mark 11:22-24.

Or the union that empowers to the use of the Name may be the union of love. When a bride whose life has been one of poverty, becomes united to the bridegroom, she gives up her own name, to be called by his, and has now the full right to use it. She purchases in his name, and that name is not refused. And this is done because the bridegroom has chosen her for himself, counting on her to care for his interests: they are now one. And so the Heavenly Bridegroom could do nothing less; having loved us and made us one with Himself, what could He do but give those who bear His Name the right to present it before the Father, or to come with it to Himself for all they need. And there is no one who gives himself really to live in the Name of Jesus, who does not receive in ever-increasing measure the spiritual capacity to ask and receive in that Name what he will. The bearing of the name of another supposes my having given up my own, and with it my own independent life; but then, as surely, my possession of all there is in the name I have taken instead of my own.

Such illustrations show us how defective the common view is of a messenger sent to ask in the name of another, or a guilty one appealing to the name of a surety. No Jesus Himself is with the Father; it is not an absent one in whose name we come. Even when we pray to Jesus Himself, it must be in His Name. The name represents the person; to ask in the Name is to ask in full union of interest and life and love with Himself, as one who lives in and for Him. Let the Name of Jesus only have undivided supremacy in my heart and life, my faith will grow to the assurance that what I ask in that Name cannot be refused. The name and the power of asking go together: when the Name of Jesus has become the power that rules my life, its power in prayer with God will be seen too.

The Bible and culture, and so-called errors in the Bible

Literal or not?

In a previous post, I considered genres in the Bible. The Bible is God's Word, and living by it should be very important. But the Bible is not a historical narrative, although there are parts of it that seem to have been meant as such, like Judges, Ruth, Esther, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles. But the Bible is more than a historical setting forth of what happened when, where, and with whom. Some parts of the Bible, like the Psalms, are poetic, setting forth the truth in figurative language. Example: 

Psalm 1:3 He will be like a tree planted by the streams of water,
    that produces its fruit in its season,
    whose leaf also does not wither.
    Whatever he does shall prosper. 

4 The wicked are not so,
    but are like the chaff which the wind drives away. (Long quotations are set in this color. Quoted scripture is from the World English Bible, public domain.)

The wicked are not really blown away, and the good man (or woman) isn't really rooted next to a water source. That doesn't take away from the significance of the passage, which is about God sustaining people who follow him, and punishment for those who don't.

Another example of poetic, non-literal language: Psalm 98:7 Let the sea roar with its fullness; the world, and those who dwell therein. 8 Let the rivers clap their hands. Let the mountains sing for joy together. 9 Let them sing before Yahweh, for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity.

Some parts of the Bible are apocalyptic. Some, probably including most or all of the parables in the gospels, are stories to make an important point. Some parts, like much of the epistles, were to set forth the theology of the Kingdom.

The influence of culture.

How long was Christ in the tomb? Most Christians would answer "three days." After all, the Bible says, in Matthew 16:21 and other places, "From that time, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up," or similar language. The culture of the people of Israel, in the time of Christ, would influence how the time in the tomb was described. Christ died toward sundown on Good Friday, and had risen by morning on Easter Sunday. That means that he really was in the tomb for less than 48 hours. In my culture, this probably wouldn't be described as "three days." Apparently it would be appropriate, in the culture of the Bible, to describe this time as "three days." This example shows that the culture of the writer and the reader influences how scripture is interpreted.

We say that the sun (and moon) rise and set. They don’t, really. The earth rotates so that they are visible in regular patterns. The rising and setting description is part of our culture. It’s not wrong, in the sense that other people are harmed or deceived when I talk about the sunrise, but it’s not strictly correct to say that it rises and sets. Luke 4:40 ("When the sun was setting, all those who had any sick with various diseases brought them to him") is not teaching astronomy, and it uses, as we also do, a modified description of the actual happening, accepted in the culture of Bible times. Readers would have been mystified, if Luke had written "when the earth rotated so that the sun was gradually obscured by the earth." So would Luke.

Mark 4:30 He said, “How will we liken God’s Kingdom? Or with what parable will we illustrate it? 31 It’s like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, though it is less than all the seeds that are on the earth, 32 yet when it is sown, grows up, and becomes greater than all the herbs, and puts out great branches, so that the birds of the sky can lodge under its shadow.”

Actually, a mustard seed is not the smallest seed. Answers in Genesis has posted an article about this situation. There are some interesting speculations in the article, and some that I have trouble with, but I agree with this statement: "The parable was never meant to be an exposition on botanical size ..." No, it wasn't. And the Bible, nor Jesus, is in error here, any more than Luke 4:40 is. Jesus was communicating about the Kingdom of God. Presumably, in that culture, mustard seeds were described as the smallest seeds, and the people of Jesus's time and place didn't know that they weren't. It would have been unnecessarily confusing for Jesus to have described unfamiliar tiny seeds.

So, Biblical examples, such as the ones given above, indicate that the culture of the audience may mean that parts of the Bible are best not to be taken as literal, historical fact. There are plenty of arguments about which parts these are, and how they should be taken.

Thanks for reading!