The meaning of "Yom": How do we set church doctrine?

I read recently that the Hebrew word used in Genesis to describe the Creation story ("Yom") could have three different meanings. One is a 12 hour period. Another is 24 periods of something (24 seasons, 24 days, 24 years, etc. The last possible meaning is "a time period". This could mean a season, a year, a millennium, etc.

I'm no language expert- and surely don't know Hebrew (so I might be entirely wrong), but if this is true then a literal translation of the Creation story may be problematic. Do we really know what the "literal" translation is?

One theory I've heard to solve this "problem" is that the King James Version was inspired by the Holy Spirit in such a way as to be a translation we can count on being literally God's words.

In going to the website http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_world1.htm, I saw these interesting theories on the Genesis account of Creation:

1- It happened exactly as the Bible- in its current English translations- says it did (God created the world in 6, 24-hour periods)
2- God created the world in 6 days, but the days were not contiguous- there were long periods of time in between each day.
3- God's "days" are a thousand days to a human "day"- therefore it happened over 6,000 days.
4- God's "days" are "like" a thousand days- so they could be any time period- to us they are long, to God they are "only" a day.
5- The Creation story is a metaphor- not meant to actually describe what happened, but to give humans a model from which to follow in as far as work, worship, and rest.
6- Each day represented millions of years
7- God did create the universe in 6 days, but it happened a long time ago (unknowable).
8- The author of Genesis used a narrative device to describe the Creation in "acts"- instead of "Act I", he used "Day 1". In other words, it is impossible to know how long "Act I", etc. was.
9- God described the Creation to Moses and took 6 days to describe it. Moses described the illustration.
10- God commanded Creation to take place over 6 days, and then it took a much longer period to take place
11- depending on your "time perspective" (since time is relative), from God's perspective (outside looking in?) the days were short. From our perspective (inside?) it would have been billions of years- but even that is problematic- since "we" weren't around billions of years ago. (this theory somehow agrees very closely with Big Bang Theory calculations for the age of the Universe)
12- and, my "favorite" : "...Replicated earth theory: Mike Schuler has developed a novel theory of origins, and has begun a web site to explain this and other scientific puzzles. He believes that God created an original earth. He spent billions of years trying every possible genetic code, to see what types of life would result. Most of the species were useless. God created a mass extinction event whenever the world filled up with such unneeded species. At the end of this great experiment, he was ready to create humans in the image of God. So he created an exact copy of that original earth in perfect detail, down to the atomic level. This took him only six days, as Genesis states. Schuler draws the analogy of the creation of a music CD. It might take months to create a new CD, but a copy can be created in seconds..."

I, personally, have one question for all of the theories which hold that it had to have happened (any part that God took direct part in) in a certain time period. For an omnipotent God, why would it not have happened instantaneously? It would seem to me to be more believable that it really was a metaphor to show us how to live, and that in reality it happened in a way most likely only known to God.

The science fiction lover in me, however, likes the "time perspective" theory. Time being relative is very hard for the layman to understand (me being one of them). At the start of the Big Bang (if the theory is right), time, space, and matter were compressed in ways beyond our understanding. To explain how it really happened, one would have to know from what perspective it was being described. Since humans weren't around according to the Bible- it would only follow it wasn't from our perspective.

In the end, however- it should only matter how it happened if it effects the central tenets of our faith. Does it?

Flooding in front of our eyes: Are we ignoring God in favor of the Bible?

If any of you have been reading this blog for some time you've probably noticed a trend in some of the posts: a struggle with how to interpret the Bible. I see some issues with a literal translation, and yet- what is the alternative? As one of my youth pastors once said: "in picking and choosing what to believe from the Bible you, in effect, become your own god."

But can that be all there is to life? Believe a literal translation of the Bible, blindly, and, through little effort of your own (unless you were unlucky enough to have been born into a non-Christian family and/or country, which would mean you would have expended lots of effort overcoming your cultural background) you reach Heaven? As a non-believe once asked me, "Why would God be so enamored with a bunch of automotons- bent on believing whatever their parents and/or society told them to- without so much as a critical thought?"

It reminds me of a story that I've posted once or twice already, but I think it is worth repeating:

A farmer is in Iowa during a flood. The river is overflowing, with water surrounding the farmer's home up to his front porch. As he is standing there, a boat comes up, The man in the boat says "Jump in, I'll take you to safety."
The farmer crosses his arms and says stubbornly, "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The boat goes away. The water rises to the second floor. Another boat comes up, the man says to the farmer who is now in the second story window, "Jump in, I'll save you."
The farmer again says, "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The boat goes away. Now the water is up to the roof. As The farmer stands on the roof, a helicopter comes over, and drops a ladder. The pilot yells down to the farmer "I'll save you, climb the ladder."
The farmer says "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The helicopter goes away. The water comtinues to rise and sweeps the farmer off the roof. He drowns.
The farmer goes to heaven. God sees him and says "What are you doing here?"
The farmer says "I put my trust in you and you let me down."
God says, "What do you mean, let you down? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!!!"

Now, we all laugh at this joke today and if you're like me you wonder at someone who would believe in something that he can't explain (God) and yet not believe in something he can. It reminds me of those people who deny medical treatment to their kids in favor of prayer. I want to yell out: "maybe God already answered your prayer and sent you a doctor!"

Likewise, I sometimes get the feeling that something similar may be in store in the Afterlife for me if I have lived by a literal interpretation of the Bible alone and ignored everything else as "man's folly". I can imagine God saying, "I created you in my own image (knowledge of self?), gave you reason, gave you the scientific method, gave you the potential for critical thought, etc.- and you chose to waste those gifts? How could you be so confident in something that you devoted no critical thought to? How can you be so pompous as to think you have Me figured out from only one of the tools I provided?"

To me "faith" is a more complex topic than we give it credit for. Believers seem to want to wrap it up in a nice little box and either you have it or you don't. Blind faith, some will say, is what God wants. Doubt, examination, and alternative possibilities are the Devil's tools and man's undoing and overconfidence. And yet I can't get why God would reward an uncritical approach to His universe. Why give us all the tools He has given us if He didn't expect us to use them- not to come to a total understanding- but to grow closer in understanding?

Maybe faith isn't just a blind faith in what our parents and society tells us, but instead faith entails believing that not everything is as simple as it appears. Maybe faith means trusting our senses and not ignoring them when they seem (from our vantage point) to contradict church doctrine. Maybe faith involves assuming that we don't live in a "matrix"-type existence and that what we see, measure, feel, etc.- is reality. To believe that all scientists are part of some worldwide conspiracy headed by the devil seems to me to run counter to that definition of faith.

Surely the knowledge of physics passed on through the generations for the past few hundred years has done wonders for the collective knowledge of the human race. If anything, I would propose it has deepened the mystery as to how God functions and how the universe came into being. I'm not saying ignore all verses in the Bible as false and start believing everything that comes out of scientific journals. But, I'm not sure we should discount them all either- the reality of God may exist in some mysterious mixture of both the Bible AND science- and wouldn't we hate to have been working at cross-purposes because we think our grasp of the Bible gives us all the answers? Can we be so confident?

Is the Bible consistent?

Growing up, a close relative used to express his frustration with the Bible to me at times. "I am frustrated many times with the New Testament. It's all about forgiveness and love. We Protestants have forgotten about the God of the Old Testament- the punisher. You didn't mess around with Him. We need more of Him today. We need a flood!"

The exact opposite was what I usually heard from my friends. "The Old Testament is so judgmental. Why can't everyone be more loving and forgiving like Jesus?"

Then I met crusty, old Army guys who talked about "the commie threat" and that Jesus seemed "like a hippy" to them.

Then there were the collegiate folks who talked more of tolerance than anything else- and made the case that Jesus would have been more tolerant than Christians today (I guess they missed the part about the moneychangers and the part of Peter trying to get Jesus to fight back).

Lastly there were the folks that thought contemporary preachers ignored the "fire and brimstone" parts of the Bible in order to not turn-off people who were looking for hope. Joel Osteen and others seemed to be the anathema of God to them.

I, too, see a difference between what was stressed in the Old Testament and what seems to be the focus of the New. In the Old there was instruction, disobedience, and punishment. There were laws- tons of them.

In the New Testament there was one message: love. God loves us, so Jesus sacrificed Himself, so that we could be saved. And all we have to do is believe in Him and love one another.

How do we reconcile these differences? Some say that is how it was meant to be: Jesus came and changed things. Others see no difference- they talk of a consistency throughout the Bible.

I tend to think that Jesus did change things. What I think about a lot is why we don't add more books to the Bible. Surely we have learned things since Jesus was here. Things that could expand our knowledge of life, purpose, and the universe.

Complexity Theory would hold that things get more complex and complicated over time. Following that- that is why religions keep breaking off into different groups and sub-groups. Things won't get simpler- things will just get more complicated. And more diverse. And there will be more groups.

So- that's why I don't think books will be added to the Bible. No group would be able to sell their ideas of additions to the other groups. It wouldn't be accepted.

But that is too bad. I am reminded of the story of the guy who passed up all kinds of chances to be saved during a flood thinking that God would save him. In Heaven God tells him, "I sent you a boat, a helicopter, a...." I think God has given us many things since Jesus was here. We have discovered and understood so many more things about His creation. We have uncovered many more questions. I sometimes feel that God would want more added to the Bible. That He still inspires people to write about Him and His creation. Will he one day say to Christians- "Why did you stop adding to my book?"

1 problem with Evolution down, 1 to go

After a HS education and some college-level classes on biological evolution and then reading a book called Scientific Creationism (and 20+ years of religious education and thought) I found myself having two issues with evolution as I understood it:

1) on the macro level I tied it to The Big Bang and saw an inconsistency at some level with respect to the need for a "first cause" at some point. At some point I thought science had a problem with being consistent: the further one went back, the closer one got to a conclusion that a Creator of some kind was needed (who created the mass of stuff that "banged"?).

2) at the micro level I thought there were too many holes in the fossil record to back up evolution. I thought evolution theory held that over a long period of time through random mutations and natural selection new species would emerge. If that were true surely at least one species would have a fossilized record of most of the variations it went through to arrive at what they are today.

Since there was no such record that I could find for even one species- I thought the theory didn't jive.

Recently, however, from readings on Complexity theory and "Emergence" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_Equilibrium) I've come to the belief that the fossil record might not contradict a theory of evolution- and that the education I got on evolution (and the way Darwinian evolution is taught) was wrong. The basic idea is that life is not chaotic or random- there are rules that structure life and that we all have to follow (one could suppose physics is an attempt to "discover" these rules that govern the universe).

From that initial structure- certain changes in the environment (quite possibly NOT random- but seemingly to us on the micro level) lead to very quick change and whole species developing seemingly overnight. And that is followed by long periods of seemingly no change. So- the fossil record wouldn't show a thousand different variations in a species because there weren't a thousand variations.

The bottom line on these concepts is that we aren't here by accident- based on the initial conditions everything we see at the macro level is more or less pre-determined (although there are plenty of micro happenstance) based on the structure (rules) of the universe (think physics)-although "emergence" would probably state it is pre-determined, but only identified as such from hindsight (unless one is an all-knowing entity).

All of that leads me to believe that one of my problems with evolution has died a slow death. But- does that lead me further from the concept of God? My conclusion is "no"- and actually I even feel closer to a belief in a "Creator". I somehow get the feeling that the mechanics of God are way out of my league the more I learn- but I actually think my other "problem" with evolution- the one that deals with the eventuality of inconsistency- is actually GREATER as I accept the "new" evolutionary theories. When one follows the logic trail all the way back to the beginning of the universe it seems to me that there IS design, there IS structure, there IS a purpose- based on emergence theory and punctuated equilibrium.

Why? Because everything rests on initial conditions and thus the world isn't chaotic and filled with chance- based on those concepts. And there are rules and structure to life. All of that leads me logically towards something setting those initial conditions, establishing the structure and rules, and something that could possibly figure the macro patterns that will emerge light years from now (or from the beginning) i.e., an all-knowing entity. Of course we can't prove this, but I'd argue it goes both ways (we can't prove another way either). When you factor in the fact that only a very small percentage of the universe (4%) is even detectable (see dark matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) and only 22% of the rest is even indirectly detectable- it seems very likely that we may never be able to "prove" (or disprove) a Creator in this life and/or dimension.

In the end I may be framing the term evolution incorrectly. To me evolution cannot be separated with the initial conditions of the universe and what started it all (Big Bang or something else). I know they are two distinct theories, but in my overall concept of the universe it is difficult and seemingly inconsistent to separate them from the same underlying logic (that logic being either no "Designer" running things and having influence- or a Designer doing something either at the beginning or continuously (read: God). Indeed, both emergence and Complexity theories would hold that evolution at the micro biological level depends entirely on however the Universe started and the rules inherent within.

Can you have evolution and still have God? Or, more presciently: can you be consistent within the concepts of evolution as we understand them today and declare there is no God? I would argue that it would be difficult.

Was Jesus an environmentalist?

I googled the title and came up with this website: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4010/is_200205/ai_n9033508/?tag=content;col1 about an environmental preacher. I think what she says makes sense: that Christians shouldn't be about overconsumption and waste. I think that definitely fits into what I see were Jesus' priorities: modesty, unselfishness, and sacrifice.

But, should we be environmentalists? To me, much of the environmental agenda has turned political and thus ideological. I think there's a tremendous difference between cutting your consumption, cutting off lights, and recycling- and trying to make the world colder (I'm sorry, I'm a "We can do anything about Global Warming- cynic"). I have plenty of faith that humans can make the environment bad, but not much faith we can reverse macro trends.

What is more interesting to me is, at the macro level, what would Jesus be for? Would He have sided with Al Gore or would he have belitted a "Tower of Babel"-type idea: this turning the world colder?

I really do think He would have been for micro-level environmentalism- just as Reverend Bingham talks about. But I also think that Jesus would have not been interested in macro-level politics. I think He was focused on the spiritual side of things and the Afterlife. "Render unto Caesar" could well have been "render unto Al Gore"- which I would take to mean to not get involved in the debate- at least not on religious terms.

But, if you believe that macro changes emerge from micro changes- then perhaps everyone turning "greener" will be a good thing overall for the planet. And while we might not get colder, maybe we can at least keep from getting any less healthy. And I would submit that would be in keeping with Jesus' teachings.