Harmonizing Science with the Bible

Some of the greatest scientists in the past several centuries devoutly believed the Bible. We’re talking about Tycho Brahe, Galileo Galilei, Sir Isaac Newton, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, and others.

On November 11, 1572 Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe observed with his naked eye a supernova, now called Tycho’s supernova, that has since been measured at 8000-9000 light years away. This was not a fluke. He was an astronomer; he observed the sky nearly every night and wrote down his observations and drew star charts. So when he saw a new, bright star in a space that had previously been dark, and it wasn't moving like a meteor, he recorded it. His work influenced Johannes Kepler. Brahe famously remarked about his work: “Those who study the stars have God for a teacher.”

 Sir Isaac Newton studied the Bible diligently. While he is famous for the scientific principle, “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction,” some of his lesser known quotes include: “Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” He also wrote: “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence.”

Galileo believed that both nature and the Bible were the word of God. “The laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics,” he said. He also said: “Holy Scripture could never lie or err...its decrees are of absolute and inviolable truth.” So where nature seemed to contradict scripture, it was a person’s own understanding that was at fault. He said this in the context of the Catholic Church’s insistence that the earth was at the center of the universe; a belief not based on the Bible, but based on the teachings of Aristotle.

The church had tried for centuries to paint its own meaning onto scriptural accounts to prove Aristotle was right. For example, when Joshua and his army needed more light to defeat their enemies, and he prayed to Jehovah for the sun to stand still, “the sun stood still and the moon did not move until the nation could take vengeance on its enemies … The sun stood still in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to set for about a whole day. There has never been a day like that one, either before it or after it.” (Joshua 10:13, 14)

The Church claimed that verse proved the earth was at the center, and the sun and moon revolved around it. When Galileo and others finally proved that the earth revolves around the sun, did that prove the Bible wrong? Not at all.

The account in the book of Joshua relates what happened from Joshua’s perspective. It is not to be taken as a scientific explanation of what happened with the earth or the solar system.

The earth is spinning at over 1,000 miles per hour at the equator. If it suddenly stopped… think about the last time you had an emergency while driving and had to slam on your brakes. Everything not strapped down slid toward the dash. And that was only at 40 or 50 miles an hour. Imagine that deceleration happening all over the globe. Even if that didn’t happen, imagine the extra heat that would have been generated on the side of Earth facing the sun. Millions of creatures, including people, likely would have died. Imagine the long stretch of darkness that would have to have happened on the side of the globe away from the sun. Why would Jehovah have put the entire planet through all that for the sake of one comparatively small event in the Middle East?

Jehovah could have and no doubt did answer Joshua’s prayer far more easily. The simplest solution would have been to create a bright, temporary light over the battlefield that, to the people below, resembled the sun.

Galileo’s conclusion was that the Bible wasn’t wrong. Rather, the Church’s doctrine was. It was not consistent with either science or the Bible.

Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, and others completely built or rebuilt scientific rules and principles while adhering to the Bible.

Yet scientists of today, who are not and never will be the next Newton, Galileo or Brahe, push the Bible away. Einstein was an agnostic, but he at least respected much of the Bible. Stephen Hawking wouldn’t even go that far. He flatly said, “There is no god. I am an atheist.” In his view, science had explained everything in the universe in ways that made God unnecessary.

Scientific principles and rules, however, many discovered relatively recently or just in the past few centuries, are not at odds with the Bible.

The majority of scientists today, while having far less understanding of the theories of the universe than Hawking, are atheists. If they started out believing in a creator, their education has stressed to them that the Bible is unscientific, a fable, a myth; and expressing belief in it makes a person a kook.

Many Bible-believers, on the other hand, have been told to view science as a tool of Satan. Any scientific conclusion that disagrees with their understanding of the Bible has to be false.

The louder those people get, the more scientists believe that being a Bible believer is synonymous with being ignorant. In this series we will look at what some Bible accounts actually say, to see if we can separate fact from dogma. 

 Please feel free to leave a comment. To read another of my columns on science, click here. 

 

Bill K. Underwood is a columnist and author of several books. You can help support this site by clicking on this link to purchase one of his books at Amazon.com.

Does the story of Lazarus prove hellfire?

In the previous columns in this series we’ve done our best to ‘turn the hose on hell’, as an old expression goes.

The Bible is very clear that the dead are asleep, that their thought processes have ended, that they know nothing. (Eccl. 9:5, 10; Ps. 146:4) That is incontrovertible – the dead are asleep and will continue to sleep until they are raised from the grave.

 But we haven’t convinced everyone. Those whose sense of justice demands that bad people be eternally tormented in fire still have one card up their sleeve: Jesus’ parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus. So let’s take a close look at that. 

[Just in case anyone is confused, the Lazarus Jesus resurrected, brother of Martha and Mary, was a real person. The 'Lazarus' in this parable, or illustration, is an unrelated fictitious character.] 

Here's how the parable starts: 

“Now the Pharisees, who were money lovers, were listening.”(Luke 16:14-31)

Who is the parable addressed to? The Pharisees. Which of their qualities does the introduction emphasize? Their greed.

 But that isn’t the only descriptor. It next says, “They began to sneer at him.” This highlights their contempt for others. Is that important? Let’s look at another account where they sneered:

“The officers replied: “Never has any man spoken like this.” In turn the Pharisees answered: “You have not been misled also, have you? Not one of the rulers or of the Pharisees has put faith in him, has he? But this crowd who do not know the Law are accursed people.”” (John 7:46-49)

What was the relationship between the Pharisees and “this crowd” supposed to be? The Pharisees were their teachers. What kind of teachers sneer at, insult, their students?

“The Pharisees heard the crowd murmuring these [complimentary] things about [Jesus], and the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers to seize him.” (John 7:32)

“. . .the crowd went to meet him, because they heard he had performed this sign. So the Pharisees said among themselves: “You see that you are not getting anywhere. Look! The whole world has gone after him.”” (John 12:18, 19)

The Pharisees called the uneducated masses by the Hebrew term ʽam ha·ʼaʹrets. Politely, that translates as “people of the land.” Less politely, it was their way of calling them ‘dirt people’. They regarded the common people as ignorant of the Mosaic Law, who didn’t observe or even know the minutiae of Jewish traditions their leaders tried to burden them with.

So Jesus scathing remarks to the Pharisees make more sense as he continues:

“You are those who declare yourselves righteous before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is considered exalted by men is a disgusting thing in God’s sight.”

Again, highlighting their second negative trait: pride. He went on:

 “The Law and the Prophets were until John. From then on, the Kingdom of God is being declared as good news, and every sort of person is pressing forward toward it. Indeed, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to go unfulfilled.”

Jesus’ words here focus on the change that began with John the Baptist’s ministry. 'The Law was until John.' Jesus is not insulting the Law; he is emphasizing the significant change the Pharisees failed to notice. When John’s ministry began preparing the nation for the messiah, that change began. When Jesus completed his ministry, that change would be complete. Next he says:

 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

Some commentators suggest that Luke or copyists here inserted words that belong somewhere else, but there is no reason to believe that. Jesus is still talking about the Law, and the changed circumstance he introduced in the previous sentence. The relationship between the people and the Law, represented by religious leaders, was much like a marriage. If the people left the Law to begin following Jesus, that would be tantamount to adultery. The appropriate end of the former relationship had to be more like a death - a complete break. (Paul made exactly the same argument in Romans 7:2-6.)

And now we are better positioned to understand Jesus’ illustration of the Rich man and Lazarus.

“There was a rich man who used to dress in purple and linen, enjoying himself day after day with magnificence. But a beggar named Lazarus used to be put at his gate, covered with ulcers and desiring to be filled with the things dropping from the table of the rich man. Yes, even the dogs would come and lick his ulcers. Now in the course of time, the beggar died and was carried off by the angels to Abraham’s side. Also, the rich man died and was buried. And in the Grave he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and he saw Abraham from afar and Lazarus by his side. So he called and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this blazing fire.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you had your fill of good things in your lifetime, but Lazarus for his part received bad things. Now, however, he is being comforted here, but you are in anguish. And besides all these things, a great chasm has been fixed between us and you, so that those who want to go over from here to you cannot, neither may people cross over from there to us.’ Then he said, ‘That being so, I ask you, father, to send him to the house of my father, for I have five brothers, in order that he may give them a thorough witness so that they will not also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to these.’ Then he said, ‘No, indeed, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.’”

The last line was an arrow into the heart of Pharisaical thinking: If they were not persuaded by their clear understanding of the pronouncements of Moses and other prophets that he, Jesus, was the messiah, they were not going to be persuaded even when he rose from the dead.

Now, let’s tear the story down further. What sins did the rich man commit that got him consigned to ‘hell’? None. Just being rich. But surely that isn’t enough to send someone to hell, is it? We are told that Lazarus ‘desired’ to eat what fell from the rich man’s table… does Jesus say the rich man prevented Lazarus from eat the scraps? No.

While we’re on that subject: what did the beggar Lazarus do to gain the great privilege of going to ‘heaven’ to lie in Abraham’s bosom? (Ignoring the fact that Jesus had already told the Pharisee Nicodemus that Abraham wasn't in heaven. John 3:13)What faith or deeds did Lazarus display? If we take Jesus’ words literally then all rich people go to hell, just for being rich; and all poor beggars go to heaven, just for being poor! 

Jesus was not teaching hellfire. He was simply describing the change, how the 'dirt people' were now being comforted by his ministry, at the same time that the Pharisees were being tormented by it.

According to Josephus, the Pharisees believed in immortality of the soul. They also believed that the “souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.” Does that mean that we should believe that, or that Jesus believed that? Certainly not. 

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus told the people, “You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’” Who had the people “heard” this said by? Their religious teachers, including the Pharisees. But Jesus wasn’t teaching that. Neither was he teaching that the poor go to heaven and the rich go to hell. Nor was he teaching that a dead person could be tormented, nor that Abraham was alive somewhere – How could Jesus teach things that contradict clear statements in the scriptures? (Eccl. 3:20; Ps. 104:29)

No real ‘rich men’ were harmed in the making of this illustration. And there is no biblical basis for believing in hellfire. 

 Please feel free to leave a comment. To go to the previous column in this series click here. 

 

 

Bill K. Underwood is a columnist and author of several books. You can help support this channel by clicking on this link to purchase one of his books at Amazon.com.

The lie about hellfire

 

The concept of torturing people in hellfire for eternity is not taught in the Bible. Archaeologists digging up temples of pagan gods, from Egyptians to Buddhists to Mayans, have found abundant evidence that, completely unrelated to the Bible, pagan priests regularly threatened their laity with an afterlife of fire – no doubt for breaking the priests’ rules, or failure to pay for the priests’ lifestyles.

"Hellfire" should not appear anywhere in a good translation of the Bible. 

If God intended fiery torture to be a potential penalty for Adam and Eve for disobedience, justice would demand that God should have warned them of it. But He didn’t.

The only warning God gave Adam and Eve about disobeying Him was: “As for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.” (Genesis 2:16, 17)

After Adam disobeyed, did God then bring up hellfire? No. “In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:19)

That’s it. Death, even in open defiance of God, equals returning to the dust. No mention of burning forever.

So, how did the idea of burning as punishment get so popular?

Jesus called Satan the “father of the lie.” (John 8:44) It is no stretch to imagine him coming up with the hellfire lie to get people to obey his priests.

The hellfire-and-brimstone crowd should take a warning from that. They should be trying to avoid doing Satan’s work. Instead, they have found verses in the Bible they can twist to sell the threat to their parishioners.

Let’s see if we can make those passages less ambiguous. 

'Fire' is introduced very early in human history, but not as a torture. (Genesis 3:19, 24) If you set aside the ‘fire’ references to cooking, heat, light, and sacrifices, the one use of fire that remains notable is destruction – whether disposing of waste or destroying conquered cities.

Many of the passages that refer to destruction by fire modify the word ‘fire’ with the word ‘consuming’. The fire didn’t just destroy something, it “consumed” it. It left no trace. This was true of Sodom and Gomorrah, the fire that destroyed Aaron’s misbehaving sons, Nadab and Abihu, and the fire that “consumed” the Israelites who were bitterly complaining in the Wilderness. (Numbers 11:1)

Israelite law required them to reduce to ashes the idols of the pagans; and, in some cases of heinous crimes, to burn the corpses of those who had been executed.

Interestingly, before they even got to the Promised Land Jehovah warned the Israelites about a practice they would encounter (Deuteronomy 12:31): “They do for their gods every detestable thing that Jehovah hates, even burning their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.” The message was repeated 700 years later in the time of King Ahaz (2 Kings 16:1-3) and a century and a half after that in the time of King Zedekiah (Jeremiah 32:35), each time emphasizing that God found the practice “detestable”.

Fire did not signify torture. It signified complete destruction.

Let’s tackle some other passages that have been misused:

Isaiah 66:24 foretells the future of some wicked Israelites: “And they will go out and look on the carcasses of the men who rebelled against me; For the worms on them will not die, And their fire will not be extinguished.”

Undying worms and fire sounds a lot like hell, doesn’t it? But wait:

That verse does not say that the men would be somehow ‘undead’, to be tortured forever. In fact, it refers to them as carcasses. And all the scriptures from Adam to Revelation make it clear that the dead are dead. Rather, it says the fire would not die; the worms would not die.

Worms don’t live forever, but they do live a surprisingly long time – 5 to 9 years under ideal conditions. They also consume their body weight every day. I don’t know how much a worm weighs, but I’m pretty sure 9 years would be more than enough time for the worms to completely consume the carcass of a wicked person.

Fire, likewise, doesn’t last forever. But it does last as long as there is fuel. So worms and fire would definitely outlast a corpse. Worms are not compatible with fire, obviously.  But if a corpse is tossed into a fire, and some of it isn’t actually in the flames, the worms would surely take care of it.

Here are some others the hellfire folks love: “Then he will say to those on his left: ‘Go away from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.” (Matthew 25:41) Is that hellfire? No. The fire is everlasting. Those condemned to it are dead, and “the dead know nothing” (Ecclesiastes 9:5). "Prepared for the Devil" doesn't mean he lives there; it means his destruction. (Rev. 20:10)

“He will clean up his threshing floor completely and will gather his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn up with fire that cannot be put out.” (Matthew 3:12) Clearly, this is an illustration. People aren’t chaff; fire doesn’t last forever. But if you were chaff, fire sure would wipe you away.

 “If, then, your hand or your foot makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or lame than to be thrown with two hands or two feet into the everlasting fire. Also, if your eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it away from you. It is better for you to enter one-eyed into life than to be thrown with two eyes into the fiery Gehenna.” (Matthew 18:8, 9) Same argument: the fire is everlasting, not the torture.

Here, we are introduced to another term: Gehenna. If you know a little Hebrew or Greek the word may be familiar. But those Bible readers who don’t know either of those languages are at the mercy of biased translators. I looked at 46 different translations online. 7 of them wrote “Gehenna”. The rest all used “hell” or “hell-fire”.

Is “Gehenna” hell? Decidedly not. Here’s how we know: First, it's an illustration. Jesus is not telling anyone to literally cut off a foot or a hand. Second, he said your alternatives are to “enter into life” or to go to “Gehenna”. What's Gehenna? 

In Jesus’ day the garbage dump outside the wall of Jerusalem was the valley of Hinnom. In Hebrew, that’s ge hinnom and in Greek, Gehenna. Besides garbage, carcasses of dead animals and of executed criminals who didn't have family that would bury them were thrown there. Like the illustration above from Isaiah 66, worms and maggots ate up whatever organic matter was out of reach of the flames. Sulfur was occasionally thrown there to keep the fire burning when there wasn’t enough fuel.

On another occasion Jesus told his followers: “Do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear him (God, not Satan) who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” (Matthew 10:28) God can not only end a person’s life, but he can end any chance of that person every being resurrected. Jesus promised at John 5:28, “All those in the tombs will hear his voice and come out.”

The Jews in his day put the bodies of those they believed would be remembered in the resurrection into whitewashed tombs they called “memorials”. The bodies of criminals and others they judged unworthy of resurrection got consigned to ge hinnom, the garbage dump. For example, according to the Mishnah, the rabbis taught that a man conversing with a woman, as Jesus did with the Samaritan woman at the well, “brings evil upon himself and neglects the study of the Law and at the last will inherit Gehenna.” (Aboth 1:5)

Jesus made clear what he thought of their thinking: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men’s bones.” (Matthew 23:27)

Aside from the gospel writers the only other reference to Gehenna is an illustration made by Jesus’ half-brother James, in which he compared the destructiveness of a gossiping tongue to Gehenna. (James 3:6)

The book of Revelation doesn’t use the word. That may be surprising, until you remember that it was written more than a quarter century after the destruction of Jerusalem, including its garbage dump, ge hinnom.

Revelation does use a term that reminds us of Gehenna: the lake of fire. Is that a reference to Hell? No. If we just read what it says, we quickly see that the lake of fire is an illustration with the same properties as Gehenna; complete destruction, and no coming back.

“The wild beast was caught, and along with it the false prophet that performed in front of it the signs with which he misled those who received the mark of the wild beast and those who worship its image. While still alive, they both were hurled into the fiery lake that burns with sulfur.” (Revelation 19:20) 

The “wild beast” and the “false prophet” are not people. They are organizations opposed to God. Organizations don’t go to hell. Being thrown into this fiery lake makes clear that those organizations will be destroyed and will never return.

“The Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulfur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were.” (Revelation 20:10)

“Death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:14) 

Death: death as in, everybody dies because we all inherited sin from Adam… that death that we view as 'natural' will be destroyed. The Grave? Well, once everyone who is to be resurrected has been resurrected, there will no longer be memorial tombs, will there?

This verse also adds this detail, “This means the second death, the lake of fire.” Different from the death we all inherited from Adam and will be resurrected from. This second death has to be a death from which there is no resurrection, reinforcing our reasoning that the lake of fire is the same as Gehenna.

The next verse, finally, talks about wicked people in connection with this lake: “Whoever was not found written in the book of life was hurled into the lake of fire.” Hellfire? No. Complete destruction, with no coming back.

And the final reference that the hellfire people might lean on: “As for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth and murderers and the sexually immoral and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This means the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

AHA! Hellfire for the wicked! No.

The verse immediately before this says: “To anyone thirsting I will give from the spring of the water of life free. Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son.” (Revelation 21:6, 7)

God, the father of Adam, is by extension our father. He wants us to be in that family arrangement. He provided his son as a ransom to buy us back from Adam’s sin, and the resurrection to bring us back from Adamic death. He arranged for Jesus to become our “eternal father” (Isaiah 9:6,7) in place of Adam. So naturally, anyone who rejects God’s family and persists in the practices listed in verse 8 is thrown into the lake of fire. Not hellfire. Destruction, with no chance of coming back.

Please leave a comment or question. To read another column on this subject click here. 

 

Check out my latest novel:

 

 

Bill K. Underwood is a columnist and author of several books. You can help support this channel by clicking on this link to purchase one of his books at Amazon.com.