Now, Morgan Freeman takes on an even bigger challenge ”” searching for answers to the some of the great mysteries of our universe. Freeman hosts a special for the Science Channel, Through The Wormhole.
Freeman credits the hand of providence for guiding him to the project. “I’ve been interested in this subject for a very long time,” Freeman tells NPR’s Neal Conan.
In Through The Wormhole, all theories around the creation of the universe are entertained, says Freeman. But those who take a literal view of the Bible will not find the series encouraging.
If the Bible is interpreted literally, then “the world is only about 6,000 years old,” says Freeman. “So we have to do that with care, but ask the questions. Mostly what the series does is ask the questions. I don’t think it produces any answers.”
I listened to this. It reveals their level of ignorance of Scripture. What to they mean by “literal” and do they know the first thing about reading Scripture and interpretation? Do they understand the genre of Genesis?
I agree with you, Br. Michael – they seem to want to fit everything into a Scopes-world-view.
I don’t think this shows any particular “ignorance of scripture” or lack of understanding of the “genre of Genesis”. There is a great deal of diversity in Christian interpretation of Genesis, from Young Earth Creationism to Theistic Evolution. They were clearly referring to proponents of the former. Their only problem was in using the phrase “literal interpretation”. “Literalism” is an overly broad term that should probably be discarded. But I don’t fault Neal or Morgan Freeman for that. My problem is when people on either end of the political spectrum assume that a traditional orthodox understanding of scripture requires some sort of commitment to Young Earth Creationism (either a liberal media type assuming that a conservative Christian would be offended by such a program, or -as I have had happen- a conservative evangelical questioning someone’s salvation for not accepting Bishop Ussher’s calculation). Fortunately with recent RC teaching on the subject, that conflation is becoming less common.
I agree guys. Lots of people — including the dean of my cathedral — completely misuse the word “literal” and frankly have only the vaguest idea what they mean by it.
On the other hand, claiming that the earth (or at least humankind) is only six thousand years old does appear to follow from taking the bible’s claim about lineages as accurate and factual.
* When Adam was 130 years old, Seth was born.
* When Seth was 105 years old, Enos was born.
* When Enosh was 90 years old, Kenan was born.
* When Kenan was…
When you add the numbers up, there’s no way you can get a date for creation any older than 4300 BC, with Bishop Usher’s date of 4004 BC being pretty sound.
I am not myself a young earther, but then I am willing to state that the Bible contains error when interpreted as factual history. Not everyone is willing to say that.
The point is that “literal” is a meaningless term. Do you read a newspaper literally? How would you respond to someone who asked you if you read the newspaper literally? The news, comics, the sports, the advertising, the editorials?
4. Right. Biblical (and ancient for that matter) genealogies are not meant to be used as a modern genealogist would use them. Nor as someone who was trying to record his or her actual family tree.
4, and it’s not meant to be “factual history” dependent on how one defines that term.
I always thought that we interpreted the “days” of Genesis to be longer than the 24 hour version we have used for (6000?) years? How else do we reconcile scripture with the clear evidence that the world is older than 6000 years?
I read Scripture using the historical-grammatical method (as most evangelicals do) and I believe the universe is about 13.73 billion years old, and that the earth is about 4.54 billion years old, and that about 534 million years ago a metaphorical explosion of complex and diverse life appeared on the planet in the space of 5 -10 million years (far too short a time for evolution to produce life – especially since the earth was bombarded with meteorites that made the crust molten just prior to the explosion of life). I believe that mankind was created roughly 40,000 years ago (give or take 10-15K years) in the manner described in the Genesis account. I believe the Biblical record is true and that there is no conflict with scientific evidence and the Scriptures. I do not believe in macro-evolution nor do I believe in a naturalistic/materialistic explanation for the origin of life or the creation of man (or for that matter, the creation of the universe). I believe that in the beginning, God made (ex nihlo) the heavens and the earth.
The law of inertia makes it clear that the universe did not spontaneously generate without being acted upon by an outside force. The 2nd Law of Thermal Dynamics demonstrates that the universe will end. Astronomy assures us that the universe had a beginning and they verify this with direct observation. There never was enough time for the evolutionary model to have worked.
There is an excellent article on the Biblical genealogies here:
http://www.reasons.org/human-origins/adam-and-eve/are-there-gaps-biblical-genealogies
There is an excellent article on Creation Days here:
http://www.reasons.org/age-earth/animal-death-before-adam/avoiding-dangerous-trap
“Mostly what the series does is ask the questions. I don’t think it produces any answers.”
Pretty Progressive Episcopalian wouldn’t you say?
Look for 815’s acolytes to tout this thing. But, after they shamed and embarrassed themselves by going out on a limb for NBC’s short-lived, ridiculous, and heretical “Book of Daniel” we can only hope that they’ve learned their lesson.
Sick & Tired noted: “I believe the universe is about 13.73 billion years old..” Does that include the emptiness part or just the matter parts? I cannot fathom that there is absolutely no end to the space out there. No walls, no boundaries; just ongoing. I’m about to have a meltdown.
The genealogies of the OT are not as precise as one might assume. We want absolute accuracy about details in our genealogies, while that did not concern the ancient Israelites. The genealogies give the high points of ancestry, not every last one of the children – so when it says, “X became the father of Y,” it could well be that Y was a great-great grandson, not a son – the intervening sons were not important enough for some reason to be named. Why that lack of concern for detail existed I do not know, but from the various genealogies in the Bible and in other near-eastern literature, we have evidence that it is so.
Thus, a literal reading of the Bible does not require one to accept Bp Ussher’s date for creation – for Bp Ussher did not know about the way Hebrew genealogies work.
Freeman is a class act. I’m looking forward to this show!
The Genesis account can be read to be a re-imaging or v. 2.0 of the earth’s creation — “the earth BECAME formless and void”. It’s possible that the earth was re-shaped by events pre-Man by God just as Man was almost destroyed in the Flood account. That would account for both dinosaurs and the old earth evidence.
Plus we don’t know how long Adam was in the Garden or if his age was reckoned from his creation or from his expulsion from the Garden.
Hi Choir Stall,
My understanding is that before the singularity there was literally nothing. The universe did not exist…not just that matter and anti-matter didn’t exist, but space-time and dimensions didn’t exist.
————————
Hi Hakkatan,
You are absolutely correct. Again, I recommend the link I provided for further reading.
#17 Sick,
It’s possible that the singularity always existed…until it ‘banged’.
“4. Right. Biblical (and ancient for that matter) genealogies are not meant to be used as a modern genealogist would use them. Nor as someone who was trying to record his or her actual family tree.”
That seems to me a bit of a cop-out. Or at least it is no different from some liberals claiming that God, or Paul didn’t really mean what was written. What parts are we to believe as literal and what parts are we not.
I hear great scorn for the “fundamentalists” and “literalists,” but at least they are consistent.
Please realize that there are some Anglicans (highly educated ones at that, with degrees and all from prestigious Universities) who have absolutely NO problem with a “young earth” (under 10,000 years at the most). Maybe Bishop Ussher got it wrong on the details, (although as the night preceding 23 October 4004 BC always seemed precise enough) but his math gets pretty close to what many believe.
So, please, folks, don’t dismiss “young earth creationists” from the Anglican island.
19, you are making the mistake I warned about. The toledoth (these are the generations of) serve to structure the Genesis account. You are assuming that they are there to set out an exact family tree with the same level or rigor that you would set out your owe family tree. One is meant to be literal and one is not. Try this explanation:
[blockquote] Biblical Genealogies
Before we can decide the issue we must be reminded that we cannot read into the Biblical records our Western contemporary way of thinking. This would miss the important principle of historical interpretation. We must try to put our minds into the frame of reference of the original writers and readers of Scripture. This is only reasonable.
The Purpose of Ancient Genealogies
What was the purpose of ancient genealogies? Biblical genealogies do not appear to be any different from other genealogies in the ancient world — Hammurabi, etc. The purpose of these genealogies was two-fold. First, they wanted to trace the basic outline of their history, establish their history of descent. With this purpose in mind it was not necessary to include every link in the family tree, only enough to establish the fact. Hammurabi, for example, gives only two or three links back to some great somebody way back when. This is why Ryrie notes, in Genesis 11, “This selective list of ten generations is recorded for the purpose of tracing the ancestry of Abraham” (Ryrie Study Bible on Gen. 11:10-26; italics added).
The second purpose of ancient genealogies was religious and theological. They wanted to make the point that God (or the gods) has protected this line as promised, and they wanted to show the connection with these past godly people.
This is evidently Moses’ purpose in Gen. 5 and 11. Moses did not write this so that we could sit down with our calculators and figure the date of creation. His purpose is not strictly chronological. And if his purpose is not strictly chronological, there is no need for a complete list of all the people in the family tree.
The famous “Abydos King List” from the Temple of Osirus in southern Egypt provides a good example. Here the king who built it put up a list of previous kings on the wall — all of them, or so it would seem. Actually, an entire three dynasties are deleted (the Hyksos, who temporarily ruled over Egypt). But the king’s purpose in the list is to show that the gods had preserved the line of kings. The incomplete list accomplishes that very well.
Now there are occasions in ancient documents when the purpose is strictly chronological. This is why in 1 Kings 6:1 there is a year total given. But this is obviously not the case in the genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11.[/blockquote] http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/miscstudies/chronology.htm#Biblical Genealogies
The Bible is composed of many different genres and they have to be read according to the rules of that genre. Paul writes letters and you have to read them as 1st Century letters. You don’t read a letter as apocalyptic literature nor do you read Genesis as a 21st Century scientific text. To claim that all genres need to be read literally is absurd. Do dogs sleep on top of dog houses as Peanuts portrayed Snoopy? No. You read it as a comic strip. It may reveal a literal truth that Shultz intended to communicate, but that truth is communicated through the rules of reading that particular genre.
Again you read poetry as poetry not as history or historical fiction. Because these are ancient texts and were are unfamiliar with the different genres we can’t switch between the different genres as we do in reading a newspaper. We switch reading strategies without a second thought, but with the Bible we need to work at it.
Genesis itself is many different genres within a single book. What you have to do is to figure out how the text wants to be read. The questions as to how God created the cosmos (God’s recipe book) is not the purpose of Genesis Chapters 1-3. It is a theological account of Gods creation written in terms of an ancient near Eastern cosmology. God communicated in the language and way of thought that the people of the time understood.
It tells the story that God made a good creation, that humans were created good and they had a good relationship with God, humanity was tempted and sinned, the relationship with God was broken and God’s good creation was corrupted. The rest of the Bible is how God redeems broken world.
So is the Bible literal? It depends on the genre of the particular passage and the rules for reading that passage. Again, do you read a newspaper literally? The answer is that it depends on the genre of the particular item you are reading.
No one seems to have looked at the link I provided on genealogies, so I will post some excerpts here for the sake of illuminating the discussion:
[blockquote]The omissions in the genealogy of our Lord as given in Matthew 1 are familiar to all. Thus in verse 8 three names are dropped between Joram and Ozias (Uzziah), viz., Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:25), Joash (2 Kings 12:1), and Amaziah (2 Kings 14:1); and in verse 11 Johoiakim is omitted after Josiah (2 Kings 23:34; 1 Chron. 3:16); and in verse 1 the entire genealogy is summed up in two steps, “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”[/blockquote]
[blockquote]In 1 Chronicles 26:24 we read in a list of appointments made by King David (see 1 Chron. 24:3; 25:1; 26:26), that Shebuel[1] the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler of the treasures; and again in 1 Chronicles 23:15, 16, we find it written, “The sons of Moses were Gershom and Eliezer. Of the sons of Gershom Shebuel was the chief.” Now it is absurd to suppose that the author of Chronicles was so grossly ignorant as to suppose that the grandson of Moses could be living in the reign of David, and appointed by him to a responsible office. Again, in the same connection (1 Chron. 26:31), we read that “among the Hebronites was Jerijah the chief;” and this Jerijah, or Jeriah (for the names are identical), was, according to 23:19, the first of the sons of Hebron, and Hebron was (v. 12) the son of Kohath, the son of Levi (v. 6). So that if no contraction in the genealogical lists is allowed, we have the great-grandson of Levi holding a prominent office in the reign of David.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]The genealogy of Ezra is recorded in the book which bears his name; but we learn from another passage, in which the same line of descent is given, that it has been abridged by the omission of six consecutive names. This will appear from the following comparison, viz.:
Chronicles 6:3-14 Ezra 7:1-5
1. Aaron…………… Aaron
2. Eleazar…………. Eleazar
3. Phineas………… Phineas
4. Abishua………… Abishua
5. Bukki……………. Bukki
6. Uzzi…………….. Uzzi
7. Zerahiah……….. Zerahiah
8. Meraioth……….. Meraioth
9. Amariah………… —
10. Ahitub………… —
11. Zadok…………. —
12. Ahimaaz………. —
13. Azariah………… —
14. Johanan……….. —
15. Azariah………… Azariah
16. Amariah……….. Amariah
17. Ahitub…………. Ahitub
18. Zadok………….. Zadok
19. Shallum………… Shallum
20. Hilkiah………….. Hilkiah
21. Azariah…………. Azariah
22. Seraiah…………. Seraiah
Ezra………………….. —
Still further, Ezra relates (8:1, 2):
“These are now the chief of their fathers, and this is the genealogy of them that went up with me from Babylon, in the reign of Artaxerxes the king. Of the sons of Phinehas, Gerhsom. Of the sons of Ithamar, Daniel. Of the sons of David, Hattush.”
Here, if no abridgment of the genealogy is allowed, we should have a great-grandson and a grandson of Aaron, and a son of David coming up with Ezra from Babylon after the captivity.[/blockquote]
There are many many more comparative genealogies in the the article that demonstrate gaps in various Biblical genealogies when compared with other Biblical genealogies. Using the Scripture to understand the Scripture, one cannot argue that Biblical genealogies are without significant gaps. I hope this has wetted the appetite for folks to actually look at the link I provided:
http://www.reasons.org/human-origins/adam-and-eve/are-there-gaps-biblical-genealogies
Again, I am an Evangelical and I use the historical-grammatical method of understanding Scripture (some would call me a literalists) and I do not see how it is possible to believe that the Scriptures are true and read all of the various genealogies and come to any conclusion but that they are not inteneded to provide a link by genealogical link historic record. They must have had some other purpose, such as demonstrating the highlights of a family line and tracing the general historic outline of a particular family history.
18. NewTrollObserver
The singularity wasn’t a “thing” it was an event.
Actually there are now a number of competing theories to explain the “big bang”, the most promising of which started out as string theory, but has now been expanded to become membrane theory. This theory holds that our universe is a membrane that is only one of a indeterminable number of membranes in a multiverse. These membranes are not static, they undulate much like a towel when you pull it from the dryer and shake it out before folding it. The theory holds that on a regular basis these membranes collide, and when they do matter and energy is transferred from one membrane to the other. This would account for the big bang without the necessity of a singularity; which all physicists admit is nothing more than the name they give to the state where all their mathematical models break down. In a singularity gravity is infinite. Physicists admit they do not understand what that means as infinity is not permitted in scientific theory.
The reason membrane theory is the most compelling is it is the only theory that has some support from actual scientific observation. Using our orbit based telescopes we have now been able to detect light that our science says must have been emitted from stars over ten billion years ago. This takes us almost to the point our science tells us our universe began. Yet as far as we can see our Universe appears to be flat. I.E. it has no curve.
I hope Freeman’s show is as fascinating as the other physics shows that the History and Science channels have been doing over the last couple of years. If we can avoid killing ourselves, I think the next century will reveal a majesty and complexity to creation we have only just begun to imagine. Perhaps our universe is to the multiverse as an atom is to our universe.