Jesus' Wife? Really?

"Jesus was married. None. There is nothing about Jesus being married in the canonical gospels, in apocryphal gospels, in the church fathers, or anywhere else. Even if this new gospel claims that Jesus was married, it is out of step with all the other credible historical evidence we have about his life." ~ "The Far Less Sensational Truth about Jesus' 'Wife'" Michael J. Kruger, Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC

I am sure many of you have read the recent articles that have been entitled things like "Jesus said, 'My wife'" or "A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus' Wife." Somehow discoveries like this seem to get a lot of media hype. I suppose it is because the media cannot get enough alternative versions of Jesus' life and love to give them historical value equal to the NT Gospels. (I have written about this type of discovery and media reaction here.)

Below I am going to give you some resources that go into much more depth than I do, but here are a few things to remember. First, this fragment is from the fourth century AD (Update: recent studies push it back to the eighth or ninth century AD). That means it was written about 300 (Update: 700-800) years after Jesus incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension. Even if this fragment were to be authenticated, it was written way too late to take seriously. Even Karen King, the scholar who revealed the fragment, gives this caution. Furthermore, we have no way to identify the genre of literature from which this fragment came. We have no idea whether the original author was even claiming to record history. Given its date and the lack of information about its genre, giving this fragment historical weight is somewhat analogous to a historian fifteen-hundred years from now discovering fragments of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" and publishing a paper entitled "Ancient US President Lincoln May Have Slayed More Than Just Slavery," even though all historical evidence points to the contrary. There is no reason to give credence to this fragment when the full NT Gospels (dated to the first century!) and all other earlier historical evidence all indicate the contrary.

If you want more detailed information, here are some resources:

• Quote from above: "The Far Less Sensational Truth about Jesus' 'Wife'," by Dr. Michael Kruger
• NT Manuscripts
• "Did Jesus have a wife?", RTB Kenneth Samples' Science News Flash
• "An Ancient Manuscript and Jesus’ Wife?", by Dr. Jeffery Gibbs

By His Grace,
Taylor

Overlooking Offenses

"The greatest leaders I know are not easily offended. Instead, they practice the habit of overlooking offenses. They take the high road, give the offender the benefit of the doubt, and move on." ~ Michael Hyatt, "Why Leaders Cannot Afford to Be Easily Offended"

The article I just linked above is well worth reading. It is mainly focused on leadership but anyone, leader or not, can benefit from reading it. So, go ahead and go read it. I can wait...

Now that you are back, I want to focus on the above quote. I think it is very wise because if we do not choose to overlook offenses, we will become bitter and bitterness hurts us, not the offending party. Someone once said that bitterness is a poison we drink thinking it will hurt the other person. But in reality, bitterness erodes at our hearts and disturbs our lives, while the offending party moves on. Whether they were trying to be offensive or not, whether they ask for forgiveness or not, the best thing we can do for our own hearts is to learn to forgive offenses before we become bitter. If we do not, the bitterness only poisons our own souls.

One thing I have learned in my marriage and the Church is that it is best to assume a person is not trying to hurt or offend you until you have overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A lot of fights, controversies, and division could be avoided if we would simply give each other the benefit of the doubt. We owe that to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ; it is part of loving our neighbor as ourselves. We would want the benefit of a doubt, right? We should give it to others.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Without Dad, Sons Drift

"When Dad is absent, boys begin to sink into themselves. They begin to drift.... Only fathers can halt the drift of sons.... [A father] possesses an authority that is both in explicable and awesome. For some reason, few things are more important to a boy--or a man--than a touch, or a smile, or a word of encouragement from Dad." ~ Robert Lewis, Raising a Modern-Day Knight: A Father's Role in Guiding His Son to Authentic Manhood

Let me tell the you the story of Ty Cobb. Cobb was arguably one of the greatest baseball players to ever live. He was the first to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, and in my opinion he stands just behind Hank Aaron and Honus Wagner. When he played, he played with his whole being. One sports writer of the time wrote that he believed Cobb would continue to play ball even if he were charged for the privilege. Yet, he was also the most despicable, the dirtiest, and most hated player of all time. In fact, he may be the most hated player in sports history. Cobb said that to him baseball was like a war and he would do whatever it took to win... whatever it took. The picture above is a good illustration of what he would do to catchers to ensure that they would drop the ball. He kept his spikes sharpened and would slide into a base with them high in an attempt to spike the opposing players in their shins or knees. On a steal or a possible double play ball, Cobb would throw his whole body at a second baseman or shortstop when sliding into second. Many men were carried off the field on stretchers because of Cobb's base-running assaults. In batting, if he could not get a hit off a pitcher, he would lean into pitches to get hit by the pitch. Of course, that is just what he would do to opposing teams. Even his own teammates hated him because he would pick fights with them if they did not play the game the way he thought they should play (i.e. dirty). In fact, he would fight anyone for anything--umpires, teammates, and even fans. He once tried to kill a grounds-keeper because the keeper was a black man who dared to say "Hello" to Cobb, and then when Cobb's teammates pulled him away from choking the poor man, Cobb turned on them. Cobb stabbed a security guard because he simply asked him to identify himself when entering an opposing team's park. He even ran into the stands on a several occasions to beat up fans that heckled him. Cobb once said in an interview, "Sure I fought. I had to fight all my life to survive. They were all against me; tried every dirty trick to cut me down, but I beat the bastards and left them in the ditch." No one could touch him, however, because Ban Johnson (the AL president at the time) would not let them. He knew Cobb was dirty and a cheater, but Cobb was also one of the best players in the game and his controversial tactics sold tickets. (Johnson did suspend him once for beating a crippled fan nearly to death but lifted it very quickly because of the monetary losses.)

Why was Cobb so angry at the world and so determined to win at any cost? To answer that, we have to go back to his childhood. Cobb was born on a Georgia farm. His father, William H. Cobb, was a hard task master and was determined that his son would "make good" in medicine, law, or the military. His father was demanding, distant, and "the only man whoever made me do his bidding," according to Ty. Nothing he could do would ever satisfy his father, however, and it drove the angry young boy to succeed at any cost. When he left home at age 17 to play baseball in the minors, his father's parting words were, "Don't come home a failure." Cobb said, "That admonition put more determination in me than he ever knew. My overwhelming need was to prove myself as a man." But, he did not succeed right away and no one noticed him, so he cheated, forging scout letters about his "unusual amount of talent" in order to get offers. His forgeries worked, but just three weeks before he made his Major League debut with the Detroit Tigers, his father was accidentally shot by his mother. She saw him sneaking in the window, thought he was a prowler, and shot him twice with a shotgun. Cobb's father died before Cobb could prove himself and that demon chased him throughout the rest of his life. When Cobb was being interviewed as an old man he said, "I didn't get over that. I have never gotten over it." Deep in his heart he was still an angry child who desperately needed his father's approval, so he was driven to succeed no matter the cost. He made everyone an enemy and fought to prove himself to a ghost for the rest of his life.

The story of Ty Cobb is a great illustration of the quote above by Robert Lewis. Cobb's father was distant, and he withheld his love and approval from his son. Most importantly, Cobb never learned from his father what it meant to be a man, nor did his father ever bestow manhood on him. So, Cobb drifted and made an enemy of the world. He learned implicitly that he had to be the best in order to be a man, and it did not matter to him how he ended up on top as long as he was there. But, enough was never enough. It was all vanity, chasing after the wind. Perhaps if Cobb's father had lived, the approval and affirmation of manhood that Cobb needed would have eventually been given. But, since Cobb's father died early on, he never got the approval or affirmation he so desperately needed. He fought the rest of his life for it, but no one could give it to him except his father.

As R. Lewis notes above, fathers have an inexplicable power over sons. Very few things are more important to a man than the approval and affirmation of his father. The football and baseball star Bo Jackson once said in a Sports Illustrated interview:

My father has never seen me play professional baseball or football.... I tried to have a relationship with him, gave him my number, said, "Dad, call me. I’ll fly you in." Can you imagine? I'm Bo Jackson, one of the so-called premier athletes in the country, and I'm sitting in the locker room and envying every one of my teammates whose dad would come in and talk with them after the game. I never experienced that.

Young boys need approval, to be taught what it means to be a man, and the affirmation of that manhood from their fathers, and without it they drift. They go looking for answers, approval, and affirmation from somewhere else. When they don't get it from him, they will go looking for it wherever they can see a glimmer of hope--women, men, sports, gangs, success, etc. But, none of those things can give them what they need and so the search will never end. They can never have enough sex, enough trophies, enough fights, or enough success to prove their manhood and win the approval of an absent father. They will be seeking to prove themselves to a ghost for the rest of their lives. I am not saying that every one will end up as angry and driven as Ty Cobb but I agree with R. Lewis--when fathers are absent (physically or emotionally), sons drift. They do not know what it means to be a man and they are left to wander the world, answering any call that promises answers, approval, and affirmation. (Go here for a whole host of staggering statistics about the adverse affects of fatherless sons.)

For those of you who know me, you know this is an important issue to me. However, now it has become much more personal. My wife is pregnant with our first child and it is a boy. I look around and see drifting men whose fathers were absent (about one third of American households are without a father and that is just physical absence, not to mention emotional), and I tell myself, "I will be there for my son." Yet, just being there is not enough. How will I teach him what it means to be a man and call him into manhood so I can affirm it for him? That is a huge question because if he does not get the answers from me, he will drift. I need to have the answers to (at least) the following questions: What is a man? What are his responsibilities? What does a man believe? How does a man behave? What should a man try to achieve? How does he withstand cultural pressure to the contrary? He will need from me a vision for manhood, a code of conduct, and a cause for which to live. Without it, he will drift.

Can you answer those questions for your son(s)? If not, I challenge you to find the asnwers because as the men go, so goes the society. Sociologist Margaret Mead wrote in her study of sexes and societies, "The central problem of every society is to define appropriate roles for the men." (p. 168) And, it starts with fathers.

A great resource I have discovered is a ministry called "Men's Fraternity." I know it sounds a little lame but they have excellent resources for a biblical view of manhood, raising sons, raising daughters, integrating family and work, and so much more. A good book to read is the one mentioned above, from which I quoted: Raising a Modern-Day Knight: A Father's Role in Guiding His Son to Authentic Manhood. I have not finished it yet (and when I do I will write a review of it), but I am impressed with it so far and I do not mind already recommending it. Another resource I discovered recently is a thesis paper by a RTS MA student. It is worth reading as well. If those are not enough, search for more. It is not easy because there is a lot of junk out there to sift through, but your son is depending on you.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Offended by the Bible: Thoughts on Handling Offenses

Some of the non-Christians I meet these days complain to me that the Bible is offense to modern sensibilities. It contains things that seem to them to be offensive, primitive, and regressive, so they feel they are justified in ignoring it. One blogger, when commenting on a picture (see the image to the left) that he claims represents the Bible's view of slavery (I will get to that below), once said, "To me, it’s obvious that the bible is offensive.... If a simple graphic depicting what slavery means is offensive, then so is the concept and the book [the Bible] that condones it. Again and again and again, our morals do not come from the Bible. Thank God I'm an atheist!"

I could try to make a list of the things in the Bible that offend people today, but it is not necessary (you can just do a Google search for it and come up with lots of rants), it would be too long for my blog post, and the list changes all the time anyway. What I would like to do is suggest a few things a thinking person (believer or non) should do when they come across something in Scripture that appears to them to be offensive, primitive, regressive, unethical, etc.:

1. Please consider the possibility that the passage does not teach what you think it teaches. If you come across something in Scripture that seems to offend your modern sensibilities, could it be that you do not understand what it really teaches on the subject? Why automatically assume that your initial interpretation is exactly what the Bible teaches and therefore you know it is offense? If it were really that easy to interpret Scripture at every point, do you think there would be so many Christian denominations? So back up for a moment, calm down, and consider that it may not be teaching what you think it is teaching. Let me give you a biblical story that shows this can happen and a biblical example to illustrate.

First, read the story of the Road to Emmaus in Lk. 24:13-34. The men Jesus walked with on the road to Emmaus were some of His disciples. They had heard Him say time and time again that He came to save the world (not just Israel), that His kingdom was not of this world, and that the religious rulers had interpreted the role of the Messiah wrong. Yet, they still said, "But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel." They had read the OT through cultural blinders that held that Israel was the only chosen people of God, applied that to Jesus' work (even though He had taught them otherwise), and as a result they got it wrong. They needed to step back and consider the possibility that they the OT did not teach what they thought it taught. That is why, in v. 27, the text says, "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." He had to show them what the OT actually taught. It can happen to anyone, so consider that maybe you are interpreting it wrong.

Second, let's consider a biblical example of this. Think about the book of Genesis and the depiction of marriage and inheritance practices described there. If we read it thinking that the descriptions are biblical prescriptions, we are going to be offended. For example, the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) practiced polygamy. Someone who does not take a moment to consider that the Bible may not be teaching what they think it is teaching, might look at this and point out how offense their marriage practices were. But, if they took some time to investigate, they would find the Bible is not at all teaching what they think it is teaching. A good place to start is Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative. Now, Alter is not a Christian (he is a Jew) and if you read my review of this book, you will see there are a lot of things I do not like about it. However, he does have some helpful things to say about interpreting OT biblical narrative. When it comes to the "offensive" practices in Genesis, he is very helpful. Alter points out that there are two institutions described in Genesis which were universal in ancient near eastern (ANE) cultures: polygamy and primogeniture (the practice of giving the eldest son as inheritance everything in the family). He notes that when we read the text of Genesis, we see first that in every generation polygamy wrecks the family and reeks social, psychological, and relational havoc on everyone. Anyone who says they have read Genesis and thinks that polygamy is portrayed as a good thing or supported by the Bible, simply has not really read Genesis. When it comes to primogeniture, Alter points out that God counters culture and always favors the younger over the older (Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, etc.). So, if you step back, calm down, consider the cultural setting of Genesis, and really pay attention to the details of the stories, you will see that Genesis is not promoting offensive marriage or inheritance practices but that it is actually subverting those ancient institutions at every point.

Please, take a moment to consider the possibility that the Bible is not teaching what you think it is teaching. Then do some research into whatever passage(s) that have offended you. Read a commentary or two. Ask someone to help you understand it. If you cannot find anyone else, ask me. I will be more than happy to attempt to answer your questions.

2. Please consider the possibility that you are misunderstanding what the Bible teaches because of your own cultural blinders. If we are honest with ourselves and others, we will admit that we are a product of our culture and that means there will be times when we will unwittingly (and wrongfully) imprint our cultural understanding of a practice, word, or philosophy back into a different culture. Let's take, for example, the subject of the quote from the atheist blogger I mentioned above. He is offended by what he thinks is the Bible condoning slavery. Why is that? It is because he is imprinting on first-century Greco-Roman culture a view of slavery that comes from our more recent new-world, pre-civil war, race-based experience of slavery. He sees Scriptures like Col. 3:22 that say, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters..." and what comes into his mind is a picture of an eighteenth-century Georgia plantation owner abusing his bought African slave. That, however, comes from not considering the possibility that his cultural blinders are affecting his view of the first-century practice of slavery. What he has not considered is that the "slavery" described in Scripture is nothing like the more recent pre-civil war, new-world, race-based slavery we think of today. His cultural blinders and assumptions are the source of his offense, not Scripture.

Murray J. Harris has written a book on the NT metaphor of what it means to be slave to Christ: Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ. In it, he spends several chapters examining the ancient practice of slavery and compares it to our more modern experience of slavery. He points out several things that show them to be very different:

• In first-century Greco-Roman slavery, slaves were not distinguishable by race, language, gender, clothing, or anything else. They were never segregated off from society in any way.
• In first-century Greco-Roman slavery, slaves were often more educated than their masters and many held high managerial positions in the household.
• In first-century Greco-Roman slavery, from a financial standpoint, slaves made the same wages as free laborers. They were not usually poor and often gained enough money to buy themselves out of slavery.
• In first-century Greco-Roman slavery, persons were not slaves for life. Most sold themselves into slavery to pay off a debt or gain a certain sum of money and worked their freedom after a set number of years.

This is in great contrast to our more modern experience with slavery. New-world, pre-civil war slavery was race-based and was perpetuated through the kidnapping, forced relocation, forced labor, and dehumanizing of African peoples, which is something the Bible categorically condemns (cf. Dt. 24:7; 1 Ti. 1:9-11).

Therefore, while early Christians like Paul discouraged the Greco-Roman form of slavery (cf. 1 Co. 7:21-24) and even worked on an individual basis to overcome it (cf. John Piper's article on Philemon), they did not feel they needed to lead a campaign to end it, for 1) they had no ability to do so since they did not live in a democratic society where social change was possible the "average joe" and 2) that form did not (at least most of the time) violate human rights as images of God. New-world Christians, however, who were consistent in their Scriptural beliefs and interpretation, did work to abolish the new-world, pre-civil war, race-based forms of slavery because they could not be squared with Scripture. (Yes, it is true that many people in the South did attempt to use the Bible to justify their subjugation of African slaves, but they were reading the Bible through their cultural blinders as well. It was an illegitimate twisting of Scripture. Such a twisting does not prove that Scripture is wrong, but only that the culturally blinded, sinful use by some Christians was/is wrong.) So, if you step back, calm down, and consider your cultural blinders may be obscuring the truth of Scripture, you might find it is not nearly as offensive as you first thought.

Please, be intellectually honest and consider that your cultural blinders mind be clouding your view of something in Scripture. Then do some research into whatever passage(s) that have offended you. Again, read a commentary or two. Again, ask someone to help you understand it. And again, if you cannot find anyone else, ask me. I will be more than happy to attempt to answer your questions.

3. Please consider that you may be offended by a biblical text because of an unexamined assumption of the superiority of your cultural moment. We in the modern, Western world often think that we are the apex of human achievement: scientifically, ethically, morally, etc. There is the unexamined assumption that because something offends our modern sensibilities, it is categorically wrong because our culture is obviously superior. However, consider that perhaps your cultural viewpoint is not objectively superior. Then think about how other cultures may read the same Bible passage you read and find it pleasing when you find it offensive or offensive when you find it pleasing. For example, consider what the Bible has to say about subjects of sex and forgiveness. In our modern, Western culture, what the Bible says about sex is seen as "obviously primitive," backwards, oppressive, and offensive, violating individual freedoms and "rights." Yet, modern, Western cultural loves what (they think) the Bible has to say about forgiveness. We love the idea of being able to be forgiven over and over again for the same sins. Now, transfer these two subjects into a modern, Middle-Eastern culture. The exact opposite responses will be given to each. What the Bible has to say about sex is pretty well accepted (though even it may not be strict enough), but what the Bible says about forgiving many times over or forgiving your enemies is seen as insane.

So, if you are offended by something the Bible says about a subject (and you have worked to get past the above two suggestions), I must ask: why should your cultural sensibilities trump everyone else's? Why should certain parts of the Bible (or the whole thing) be tossed because they offend your (unexamined) cultural assumptions? Think of how cultural assumptions change and you will see how improper this is. What we think of as "normal" today was considered taboo fifty years ago, and your great grandchildren will probably find absolutely embarrassing many of the things that you consider culturally acceptable today. So, again, why should your current cultural sensibilities trump all others?

Please, consider that you may be offended by a biblical text because of an unexamined assumption of the superiority of your culture, and then take some time to attempt to examine those assumptions. Perhaps you will find they are not as superior as you first assumed.

Whether you are a Christian or not, hopefully these suggestions will help you when you come across something in Scripture that seems to you to be offensive. It takes time and effort to do what I have suggested above, but it will be worth it. If you do not do it and simply toss out the Bible, you will be missing out on everything that Jesus has to offer, most importantly peace with God, forgiveness, salvation, eternal life, and freedom.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Science vs. Religion: Thoughts on Handling Apparent Conflicts

"While many Christians and non-Christians see the two [love of science and a desire to serve God] as in perpetual conflict, I find they integrate well. They operate by the same principles and are committed to discovering foundational truths. My passion... is helping Christians see how powerful a tool science is to declare God's glory and helping scientists understand how the established scientific discoveries demonstrate the legitimacy and rationality of the Christian faith." ~ Dr. Jeffrey Zweerink, UCLA Assistant Researcher and RTB Scholar

When people find out that my educational background is in physics and that I just graduated from seminary, I am often asked about the alleged conflict between science and religion/faith. When the questions come from a fellow Christian, they generally ask how I can merge the two without giving up my commitment to the inspiration, authority, inerrancy, and infallibility of Scripture (all things to which I am completely committed). This is a very important question and usually I find it comes from people hungry to hear something besides "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" or "religion simply causes fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering." I enjoy being asked the question because it gives me a chance to try to help others realize there is no inherent conflict between science and the Christian faith, and that the alleged conflict is simply played up by many of the so-called "new atheists" and media hype.

What is a Christian to do when they come across "scientific fact" that seems to conflict with Scripture? Below are several things that I keep in mind when I see headlines or read the latest "new atheist" rant. Not all these things will be possible all the time, but they are things to look for and keep in mind that will help us sort these issues out (this is by no means an exhaustive list and I or others may modify or add to it later):

• Remember the world in which we live... and do not be surprised: I sometimes find myself astonished that someone would treat me with contempt or patronize me like a child when they find out I am a Christian and a scientist, and then, when I come to my senses, I remember that I should expect nothing less. This is exactly what Jesus told us to expect. Christians are a people whose highest allegiance is God Himself and His written Word is the highest authority in our lives. We, however, live in a world whose highest allegiance is any number of idols, particularly human reason. These ultimate allegiances are going to come into contact and, as the man used to sing, "something's gotta give." But, neither side is willing to give up their allegiance. The world looks to reason as the only self-authenticating authority and will not tolerate Christians who look to the Bible as the only self-authenticating authority (of course, Christianity does not deny the value of reason but places it in its rightful place: under God). So, do not be surprised when the alleged conflict is amplified or someone claims your belief is "unwarranted." This is part of the world in which we live.
• Check the source and wait: Sometimes discoveries made by scientists are either reported by the media too early (and incorrectly) or later debunked by further testing and experimentation. In the first case, take note of what you are reading in media articles and from where the information came. Did it come from a published, peer-reviewed article or from a presentation at a scientific conference? There can be a big difference in the reliability of the data. At conferences, researches share raw, infant ideas that can range from Nobel prize concepts to junk and dead ends. Sometimes unpublished, un-peer-reviewed claims are portray as scientific fact when even the researchers would not say that. If you have the knowledge and ability to check the claims, do it. If not, wait and see if further information on the subject comes up after the research has made it through the peer-review system (make use of Google Alerts). If the media story does come from a reputable journal, try to check the reporting and claims by doing your own research or asking a friend who might have expertise in the area. If that is not possible, I would recommend asking my friends at Reasons to Believe, but, as a distant second, I offer my assistance (at times I talk about scientific discoveries from a biblical perspective, some examples are here, here, here, here, and here). When all else fails, wait and follow the story (again, make use of Google Alerts)  Sometimes mistakes can happen, like the recent neutrino debacle (read the before and after) or claims can be over blown, like the Ida circus stunt. When so many people are trying to make a name for themselves, this is the nature of the beast and eventually bogus claims are exposed. 
• Try to separate the data from the interpretation of the data: This can be a huge help when trying to deal with scientific claims that apparently contradict Scripture. There is a difference between scientific data and interpretation of that data. The data is the raw information brought to light by a study or a discovery and that data has to be interpreted with a model or paradigm to figure out what it means and where it fits. Everyone interprets data within a model or paradigm (whether we know it or not) based on our beliefs and worldview. A scientific model refers to the schematic description of a system (or set of data) that accounts for observations and inferences as well as origin and history. It is a paradigm that attempts to offer reasonable explanations for the entire scope or history of a particular system in nature, as well as for its relationship to other phenomena. Particle physics has the Standard Model, for example. There are other models, like naturalistic evolution. Data taken in by various fields of science is generally interpreted within the accepted model. What you are likely reading in a media article (even a journal article) is not the data itself (for that would not sell advertising) but an interpretation of that data. Christians need to separate the data from its interpretation and interpret it within a biblical model. If we really believe God created the universe and wrote Scripture, then we know the data will fit within a biblical model, we just have to do the work of separation and interpretation. Sometimes the interpretations will be almost identical; other times there will be significant differences. For example, see my articles on the historicity of Adam and Eve. Now, again, this can be a very difficult thing to do for someone who does not have access to journal articles (to get the data) or the necessary training to understand and interpret the data. As mentioned above, try to check the claims by doing your own research or asking a friend who might have expertise in the area. If that is not possible, again I would recommend asking my friends at Reasons to Believe, but, again as a distant second, I offer my assistance.
• Remember that everyone is biased... everyone: If there is one good thing that postmodernism has done for society, it is to shown that everyone is biased and no one has the ability to lay aside completely their personal presuppositions. We interpret every piece of data not only in a model (see above) but according to our own presuppositions. As stated above, one of the common modern presuppositions is that human reason is a self-authenticating authority. Another might be that evolution is a scientific fact. We need to look for the hidden presuppositions in bold statements and ask how they might be affecting a person's interpretation of the data. We should not berate others because they have biases (for we all have them), but we should try to help them see how their biases are affecting their interpretation and how other interpretations from other presuppositions are equally valid.
• Remember that God is the God of general and special revelation: Article 2 of the Belgic Confession states: "We know Him [God] by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: His eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20. All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse. Second, He makes Himself known to us more openly by His holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for His glory and for the salvation of His own." What the authors of this great confession were pointing out is that God is the God of all truth, whether it comes from nature or Scripture. This means that science and Scripture will perfectly harmonize when we are interpreting both correctly. The apparent contradictions crop up when we or others are misinterpreting one or both "books." All apparent contradictions are just that, apparent, and not real. Sometimes it takes a lot of hard work and time to figure out where we or someone else has gone wrong in interpretation, but we must never forget that any contradictions are a manifestation of human fallibility, not inherent to God's Word or world. 
• Be humble: Remember, you and I are just as fallible, biased, and sinful as the most hardened, virulent "new atheist." The only difference between us and them is that we have God's grace, forgiveness, salvation, and Holy Spirit (not from anything in us but as a gift so no man can boast, Eph. 2:8-9). The only reason that you and I understand and believe the Scriptures is the Spirit's illumination (1 Co. 2:9-12), therefore be humble when responding to critics, evaluating someone's work, or discussing apparent contradictions with others.
• Pray: When Nehemiah stood before the King Artaxerxes to request permission to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls around the new Temple, he was in a tenuous spot. He could have been killed for his request. In 2:4 the king asks the question "What are you requesting?" and before Nehemiah responded Scripture tells us that he prayed. In that moment, few seconds, he prayed for wisdom and God gave it to him. We need to pray for wisdom when trying to figure these things out. Sometimes they are very difficult (if they were not, there would not be all the controversies we find ourselves in today). We need to pray that God will help us sort out the truth from interpretation, the facts from presuppositional errors; and we need to pray that He will help us come to a proper understanding of both His Word and His world. 
• Remember that God is still God, even if you cannot figure it out: Friends, let us be honest, we are not going to figure everything out. Even the best scholars sometimes have to say, "I don't know." We must remember that even if something seems contradictory and after all our research we still cannot figure it out, God is still God and Jesus is still coming back. I hate not being able to figure something out as much as the next guy, but sometimes (rarely but sometimes) we need to admit it is too much for us, trust God, and go get a milkshake. 

By His Grace,

Taylor

A Plethora of Planets: What does it all mean?

Before about 17 years ago astronomers knew of no other planets than the eight planets in our solar system (at the time is was nine but since then Pluto has be demoted, I think rightfully, from its ranking among the planets). Then in October 6, 1995, Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz announced in the journal Nature that they had discovered the first extra-solar planet orbiting 51 Pegasi. (I was only 14 at the time, but I remember this discovery and I was really excited about it. I thought I was going to be a professional astronomer one day and I was going to enter the field at a time where technology was advanced enough to study planets outside our solar system!) Since then, more than 800 other planets have been detected and confirmed using the radial velocity method, transit method, and other methods of detection. The first, easiest, and most widely used method of detection is the radial velocity method, but this method lends itself to discovering very massive planets like gas giant planets (planets like Jupiter), which means that, while they are valuable for their scientific data, they do not add anything to the search for a planet that could possibly host life. With the launching of the Kepler Mission and its use of the transit method, the number of potential planets has jumped by more than 2,000 (most of these still need to be confirmed/verified, which is why the above official number is still less than a thousand).

Since the launch of the Kepler Mission, you may have seen headlines like "NASA Finds Earth-size Planet Candidates in the Habitable Zone," "Newfound Alien Planet is Best Candidate Yet to Support Life," "NASA finds dozens of planets that might support life," and "Alien Planets: Billions Of Habitable Exoplanets In Milky Way Galaxy." Whenever scientists discover a planet that is similar in size to earth and in the liquid water habitable zone, excitement grows because they do add something to the search for a planet that could possibly host life. It is an exciting time to be an astronomer, to say the least, and the excitement has filtered down into the public because of the frenzy of news articles about the discovery of "earth-like" planets.

However, questions arise with all this excitement. With all the data pouring in from the Kepler Mission, how excited should we really get? Is NASA on the verge of discovering alien life or is that just media hype in order to sell a story? What does it really mean when an "earth-like" planet is discovered? How common or rare is Earth? Are the "habitable planets" really habitable? This last question is the most important because it brings up the possibility of life existing on other planets. Below we will cover these questions and do so with particular focus on the idea of "habitable planets." (Warning, by necessity this is going to get a bit technical. I have done my best to clearly explain these things but if something is not clear, comment and ask me about it.)

Let's talk for a few minutes about what it means to be "earth-like." As we all know, the term "like" is a very ambiguous term and in the astronomical business the situation is no different. There is no consensus on what it means for a planet to be "earth-like." How similar in mass and size does the planet have to be to earth in order to be considered "earth-like"? What kind of atmosphere does it need to have to be "earth-like"? What kind of star does it need to orbit to be "earth-like"? How far from its star does it need to be in order to be "earth-like"? What kind of orbital period (the time it takes for the planet to make one revolution around its star) is necessary for a planet to be "earth-like"? These are all good questions and there is no consensus on the answers. Now, do not be too quick to judge astronomers because they have not narrowed down a precise definition for "earth-like" planets. Think of how long it took to narrow down the definition of "planet" itself. Astronomers have known about most of the other planets in our solar system for hundreds of years, yet a formal definition for "planet" was not agreed upon until the IAU's meeting of 2006! "Why did it take so long?" one might ask. Well, let's use a little thought experiment to demonstrate why. Imagine for a moment that the only other humans you know about are those in your immediately family. For me, that would mean only five people (if I do not include my wife). Now, imagine your family wanted to define formally what it meant to be human. You could look at the family dog and say, "That is not a human." You could look at the family cat (though I cannot understand why anyone would want one) and say, "That is not human." Then you could look at each other, assess the common features of your family, and begin to define "human." But how accurate could you really be? Your sample size is so small that you would likely be tempted to be too narrow in your definition (e.g. perhaps including skin pigmentation or hair color in your definition) or too broad in your definition (e.g. perhaps including only the ability to walk erect in your definition). You need a much larger sample size and a lot of time to deliberate together even to begin to be able to create an accurate definition. The same goes for astronomers. In the case of the formal definition of "planet," astronomers needed a much large sampling of planets than those in our solar system to create an accurate, formal definition. In the case of "earth-like" planets, astronomers are just beginning to discover other planets that appear to them to look like earth. It is going to take a much larger sampling of planets and a lot more discussion for an accurate, formal definition to emerge. So, when you hear "earth-like" take it with a grain of salt and start asking other questions: What do you mean by "earth-like"? How large or small is the planet compared to earth? What kind of star does it orbit? How far is the planet from its star? What kind of atmosphere does it have (if that information is even available)? The answers to all these will be very important, especially when it comes to the possibility of the planet being habitable.

Skipping the first general question, let's take a look at the importance of the second: How large or small is the planet compared to earth? This is a crucial question when it comes to the planet's habitability. "Why is that?" one might ask. Because the size of the planet is related to its tectonic activity: the larger the planet the more tectonic activity; the smaller the planet the less tectonic activity. Tectonic activity is the movement of the tectonic plates on which the surface of a planet sits. This movement is what creates events like earthquakes and geological features like mountain ranges and volcanos. It has a much more important function for life, however. Tectonic activity is crucial for life because it recycles carbon dioxide, which helps regulate the planet's temperature. As plates move apart, slide under one another, and even crash into each other, they also recycle carbon dioxide. This regulation and recycling of this greenhouse gas acts as a thermostat to keep the planet warm (but not scorching) over large geological time scales. Without tectonic activity the earth would look like Venus. It is only slight smaller than earth but it is too small to have sustained tectonic activity (any activity after the planets initial formation), so carbon dioxide has built up to form a thick atmosphere and keep the surface temperature of the planet at about 800 degrees Fahrenheit (far too hot for life). So, being only slightly smaller than the earth is too small to support life because there will be no sustained tectonic activity. If a planet goes the other direction, larger than the earth, the possibility of life runs into another problem: too much tectonic activity. As a planet gets larger the tectonic plates become thinner, weaker, and more easily moved, so there is much more tectonic activity. Any larger than two to three times the size of the earth and the planet would have frequent and massive earthquakes, making it too geologically unstable for any type of advanced life. So, when someone says, "Scientists have found a habitable planet!" ask them how big it is compared to earth. If it is only slightly smaller, it will not be able to support any life, and if it is just a little larger, it also will not be able to support any type of advance life.

The second question, "What kind of star does it orbit?" I have discussed before here. This is important because of what is known as the planetary/circumstellar habitable zone. This zone is a band that circles around a star (circumstellar) which defines the minimum and maximum distance a planet can be from the star even to be considered "habitable." The type of star that a planet orbits is crucial to the circumstellar habitable zone because, as I discuss in my earlier post (please see it for more detailed information), there are really two zones around each star--a liquid water zone and a UV radiation zone--that must overlap for life to be possible. This overlap is a band around the star where liquid water could possibly exist and there will be enough UV radiation (but not too much) to give life the energy it needs. If the star has an effective temperature below 4,600 K or above 7,137 K, the zones will not overlap and life will not be possible. This rules out 80% of all stars as possible candidates for life-supporting planets! The Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia has a list of all the confirmed and verified planets, and it gives you the effective temperature of the host star. When someone says, "This planet is habitable!" check it out. Go to the list, find the planet, click on its link, and check out its host star's effective temperature. If it is not within the above range, it will not be habitable.

The third question is "How far is the planet from its star?" This is crucial because distance from the star affects the planet's rotation (the planet's spinning on its axis). If the planet is too close to the star then it will be "tidally locked." A tidally locked planet is so close to its star that the star's gravity only allows it to rotate once per revolution, meaning the same side of the planet always faces the star. For example, the moon is tidally locked to the earth, i.e. the same side of the moon always faces the earth. This creates a serious problem for the possible habitability of a planet. No matter what kind of star the planet orbits, if it is tidally locked the side facing the star will become incredibly hot (well above boiling temperature) and the side facing away will become incredibly cold (well below freezing temperature). So, even if a planet is in the habitable zone (both the liquid water and UV radiation zones), a tidally locked planet could not support life. This is an important feature of the recent headline "Alien Planets: Billions Of Habitable Exoplanets In Milky Way Galaxy." This research claims that there could be billions of habitable planets orbiting M-dwarf stars in our galaxy (M-dwarf stars make up about 80% of our galaxy's total number of stars). (They have not, of course, detected that many planets; it is a statistical prediction.) The problem with this claim is that it is simply looking at whether or not the planet is in the liquid water habitable zone. What it does not point out is that M-dwarf stars are so dim/cool that any planet in the liquid water habitable zone will be tidally locked! Even though the star is dim, if one side is always facing it that side will be far too hot for life and the other side will be far too cold. Again, when someone says, "Scientists have discovered habitable planets!" ask how far it is from its star and whether or not it is tidally locked. If it is, then, while it may be in the habitable zone, the planet itself is in no way habitable.

Finally, one must inquire as to the atmospheric characteristics of the planet, "What kind of atmosphere does it have?" Unfortunately, rarely can this question be answered. Our detection methods are not refined enough to give much information about an extra-solar planet's atmosphere. The point of asking the question, however, is to point out that even if all of the above qualifications are met (proper size, host star has a good temperature, and the planet is not tidally locked) the atmosphere could still easily rule the planet out as habitable. Since we have no idea what its atmosphere is like, it is dubious to claim it is habitable. Let's do another thought experiment. Say you were looking at our solar system from 100 light years away. You would see it has eight planets and, to your delight, you would discover that three of the eight are in the habitable zone (both liquid water and UV radiation)! Why? Because Venus, Earth, and Mars are all in that zone, yet we know that two out of the three cannot support life (Mars is debated, of course, but as it stands there is zero evidence for present or ancient life there). Why can't they? Venus' atmosphere is so thick that its surface temperature is about 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Mars' atmosphere is composed mostly of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and argon and its atmosphere is so thin that it has lost all its liquid water. So, if you were looking at our solar system from far away you would think there were three habitable planets, yet when you got here you would only find one. The point is that being in the habitable zone, being the right size, orbiting the right kind of star, and being the right distance from the star does not at all mean the planet must be habitable.

So, what should we make of all this verbose (probably too verbose) explanation? How excited should we get? Are the planets really habitable? How common or rare is Earth? Well, in answer to the last question, Earth is still without an equal. Of all the claims for discovering habitable planets, none meet all the criteria I have named above. Furthermore, the criteria I have gone through above is a small sampling of the many characteristics necessary for life to exist on a planet (for a large working list, see this article by RTB), and all the planets discovered do not even meet the criteria on my small list. For more information on the rarity of Earth, check out this book (by two atheists!): Rare Earth. Are the planets really habitable? Most of the articles you will read in the popular media are just looking at whether or not liquid water could exist on the planet. Certainly liquid water is a necessary condition for life but it is in no way a sufficient condition for life. Furthermore, the list I linked above from RTB shows that there are dozens of necessary conditions for life and liquid water is only one of those. Finally, how excited should we get? I am very excited for two reasons: first, each new planet tells us a little more about how planets form, what most planets are like, and how solar systems form, all of which expand our knowledge of the universe; and second, each new planet shows us how fine-tuned our planet is for life, particularly for human life. It is no coincidence that no other planet is like ours. God chose to create humans, the apex of His creation, here on Earth and He made sure it was perfectly suited for our needs. No other planet even comes close. Far from showing God is not necessary or life is abundant throughout the universe, all the new planetary discoveries show that God's fine-tuning is absolutely necessary for life and life only exists where He wants it to be.

By His Grace,
Taylor