Reason for God: Isn’t the Bible a Myth? Has Science Disproved Christianity?

Rather confusing DVD discussion as it digressed a lot from the topic. Korean lady: Do people believe in the Bible through rational study or cultural pressure? Lots of socialreasons involved in choosing a religion…Are they good or bad reasons for faith? Is there a possibility that you consider Christianity may not be true? What would it take?We cannot all be objective when it comes to the question of whether the Bible is God’sword. All of us have vested interests. We may want or not want it to be true. Be critical of your skepticism or wishes as well.

Is there a dichotomy between myth and truth? Does it have to be factually true inorder for it to be important? Art is true for the moment and does not need to beauthenticated by history. More importantly, does it emotionally true? Does itresonate with your heart?

At one level, for example ethical teachings in Jesus’ parables, its truth does not dependon whether the good Samaritan is historical or not. It resonates with theological trutheven when it is not authenticated by history.But on another level, Christianity is not just a set of ethical principles but about Godacting to rescue his people in space-time events. That’s why some acts of God in historysuch as the death and resurrection of Christ are important and need to be verifiable. It isnot just collective imagination of believers but something that really took place in order for it to have the meaning it claims to have.

Some participants in the DVD think history is important. The resurrection of Christis a clincher: It changes everything if Jesus really rose from the dead. Why?

That would be a vindication of the claims Jesus made about Himself – a miracle thatauthenticates His claim to be God and has authority over everything.

But are the Gospel records of Jesus’ life historically reliable? Isn’t it a documentthat has been translated so many times and different parts are cobbled together?

Reason for God, page 100 – 108: The gospels were written too early to be myths as eyewitnesses and critics were alive to verify and dispute the facts. The ‘embarrassing’content (failures of the disciples, a crucified Messiah, absence of materials oncircumcision, a burning issue in the church) shows that the disciples were not free tomake up stuffs as they went along. Literary form of the Gospels was too detailed (likefootnote names, catching 153 fish, Jesus asleep on cushion in a boat).See also Craig Blomberg’s

Historical Reliability of the Gospels (article)

Culturally Regressive: Does the Bible condone slavery and unequal gender roles?“Accept everything in the whole bible? I can’t support that.”

Reason for God, page 109 – 113: Consider the possibility that you have misunderstoodwhat the Bible really say (the context of slavery in 1

century Rome versus New Worldslavery). It is possible that our culture’s notion of ‘progressive’ will be outdated soon andnot be absolute. Major in the majors and minor in the minor themes: Just because youdon’t like what the Bible says about gender roles (which even Christians disagree about)doesn’t mean that Jesus couldn’t be raised from the grave.Keller: What happens if you pick and choose what to believe and reject anything in theBible that offends your sensibility? You’ll have a god of your own making who willnever contradict you. Only if you God can say things that outrage you and make youstruggle (as in a real friendship) will you know that you have gotten hold of a real Godand not a figment of your imagination.

Scientifically Credible: Evolution is very crucial to me and needs to be reconciledwith the Bible in order for it to be credible. Christianity has the burden of proof. Ihave not seen any miracle along the lines of what the Bible recorded.

Some non-believer participants in the DVD see the limitations of science – “It broughtme to believe in faith. Science is also a myth. Stuffs about molecules are just theories.”Or, “Science can’t tell us about love. It’s a methodology (a way of exploring reality) andcan’t come to final conclusions about what is real or not.”Keller: Science assumes a natural cause for everything so it cannot see a miracle even if itsees one. Miracle is possible if God exists.See also chapter 6 in The Reason for God,

Has Science Disproved Christianity?

What do you mean by evolution?

If evolution refers to a worldview that explainseverything from our morality to logic as shaped by non directed genetic mutation andnatural selection; that is different from evolution as a biological process that explainshow species have changed and adapted over time. One is a faith position like religionwhile the other is a scientific hypothesis. The first is in conflict with biblical faith but thesecond may just be a scientific exploration of the ways God has gone about in creatingliving beings.Christians occupy different positions on the issue of evolution: God created natural lawsand leave everything to run by natural cause and effect, God created everything throughevolution, God created everything in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago, God performed large-scale progressive creative acts over a longer period.2

Young Earth Creationists – Ken Ham, Henry Morris, Duane Gish: About 10,000 years old earth,literal reading of Genesis, question the dating of fossils, reject macro evolution.http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Theistic Evolutionists - Alister McGrath, Francis Collins, Polkinghorne. God created the initialmaterials and set up the natural laws, then guided the whole evolution process.http://metanexus.net

Old-Earth, Progressive Creationists – Hugh Ross, Kenneth Samples. Accepts big bang cosmology,dating of fossil record, rejects evolution, holds that God progressively intervenes millions of timesto create new species http://www.reasons.org/

Intelligent Design (ID) – Philip Johnson (reframe the question), Dembski, Meyer, Michael Behe.ID holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by anintelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection: the anthropic principle,DNA, irreducible complexity, design can be empirically detected. http://www.

discovery

.org/

What is Genesis 1 and 2 really saying?

Keller thinks Genesis 1 has the features of a poetry (“song” about the meaning of creation) while Genesis 2 is an account of how ithappened. The literary genre is “exalted prose narrative”: author is making truth claimsabout the world but in such a way that it was not meant to be taken literally.For example, in Genesis 1 natural order means nothing (light appears before the sun iscreated) whereas in Genesis 2 natural order is followed (2:5). The primary intention is toshow that “In the beginning God created”. How he did it (in six 24-hour days or over millions of years representing 7 epochs) is not the point. Once this is understood,evolution or any scientific theory is no longer contradictory to the bible because the pointof Genesis is that a personal God created and sustains all things.

Korean lawyer: “If there is nothing bigger than ourselves, life seems depressing.”But some participants think that life goes on, you can still be happy and moralwithout God. You can find truth in a lot of things. What do you think?

Keller: Moral and spiritual realities are like the physical world (The tree in front existswhether you like it or not). There are moral absolutes: If you live for selfishness insteadof love, there will be consequences. If you are out of touch with God; you are not true toyour nature.But a lady in the DVD recalls how some Christian college kids experienced seriousturmoil because of an unrealistic code of ethics (moral truths that we have to live by).What was Keller’s response and do you find it helpful?Religion says: “Do good, obey the rules – then I will be accepted by God”.Gospel: “I am accepted by God because of what Jesus has done – therefore I obey”.This kind of love releases you from fear and the crushing need to earn God’s lovethrough performance. Instead it gives you a new motivation to perform i.e. because you3