During the past year I have read at least some portion of your newspaper columns; we seldom ever agree on anything. In fact, the word never would probably work best here. You have steadfastly defended Clinton with every new sleazy revelation and with equal fervor trashed Ken Starr. I do not recall a single instance in which you have defended Biblical morality; now there is a “hint” as to the reason why.
According to your column of September 9th, titled “Making God in Their Own Image” in the Denton Record-Chronicle, you think that those who believe in the literal creation of this world, instead of evolution, have made God in their image. You also rather arrogantly accuse God of “being a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme being” (8A). Perhaps, for that reason you are always so happy (and quick) to climb into bed with Satan and to advance his agenda.
Since you have taken it upon yourself to offer a “rigorous intellectual analysis” of scientific creationism, you will surely not mind an analysis of your column. You begin by saying that “a literal interpretation of the Bible produces nonsense.” Really? Those of us who study the Bible day by day and week by week do not consider it nonsense. Could it be, Mr. Kaul, that your lack of understanding is the problem? As people often say, “The one who criticizes a great work of art reveals more about himself than the masterpiece he rails against.” You have likewise revealed much more about your own ignorance than you have harmed the Bible you seek to destroy. Furthermore, you have succeeded in insulting millions of people who believe the Holy Scriptures by insinuating that they are too dim to realize that their beloved Book is nonsense. You might have said, “There are some problems that a literal interpretation carries with it” instead of being so openly hostile and implying that believers are nonsensical.
But let’s consider your charges of God’s alleged “mistakes” (fancy that–a mortal seeking to correct Divine wisdom). “If you’re going to create a creature that lasts 80 years or so, why supply it with a back that is only good for 50 or 60 years?” This must be intended to be humorous, not serious criticism. Many people thrive beyond those years without back problems; exactly what are you talking about? Regardless, you are wrong, anyway. God made backs to last several hundred years, which you might have noticed if you had read the literal lifespans of the earth’s first inhabitants.
Try to understand this crucial point, Mr. Kaul: When God finished the creation, it was very good (Gen. 1:31). Things have changed because of sin being brought into the world and because of man’s excessive love and practice of sin. Because of sin the ground became cursed with thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17-19); disease and death likewise entered in. Earthquakes (your second objection) resulted from the Flood, which was a punishment upon mankind for his continual obsession with sin. Apart from sin these things would never have occurred.
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened (Gen. 7:11).
The earth suffered great upheaval as punishment for man’s great wickedness, for “every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). “The earth was also corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11). Do not blame tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, volcanoes, and earthquakes on the Almighty; they were merited by man’s extreme fondness for sin.
Your third complaint concerns murder.
If God created man in his own image, how come man is such a sorry example of an intelligent being, one of the very few animals who kills his colleagues or fouls his own nest? …This most intelligent of species (and I wondered who figured that out) will kill friends, strangers, members of his own family, even his children, very often for trivial reasons, like the clothes his victims are wearing or the color of their skin. These people are made in God’s image? That doesn’t say much for God.
You really set yourself up on this one, Mr. Kaul. The reason man is such a sorry representation of an intelligent being is that He has chosen to ignore God’s book of literal instructions. Perhaps you may have heard the expression, “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13)? Or were you the one that objected to having such laws posted in schools?
God defines what is moral and what is not. It is up to man to adopt the kind of behavior that is appropriate. But holy and righteous behavior does not accurately convey the idea of what it means to be created in God’s image. This expression refers to the thinking and reasoning capacity that God gave to man. Some people are poor examples of logical, rational beings (consider your column, for instance), but all have the ability to be so. The fact that people are obstinate and unreasonable in some areas of their lives does not mean they do not know enough to get out of the path of an 18-wheeler that is bearing down on them (if they are sober and desire to live).
Actually, if evolution is true and God does not exist, you really have no complaint about man’s actions, since there would not be any Divine standard to violate. People can only be judged wrong if there is a moral standard they are violating. Prejudice, which leads to murder, can only thrive in the absence of literal Scriptures, since without them man is not created in God’s image. With the Scriptures we know that “He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth…” (Acts 17:26). We also know that people of all nations are invited to be part of the kingdom, the church (Isa. 2:2-4; Gal. 3:28). But without this revelation concerning the brotherhood of man, there is no basis for not viewing those who are a little “different” with suspicion and maybe thinking that they are inferior or perhaps need to be “eliminated.”
With reverence for the Bible people can be taught to respect their fellow man. They can be taught not to murder adults or the innocent human life in the womb (or would you agree with that, Donald?); without the “literal” Scriptures people will do all the things you accuse them of–and more.
Men do wrong things because of the free will that God gave us. We make wrong decisions. Some people regret their wrong actions and repent of them. Others laugh and continue their evil ways as if there is no day of judgment coming. God has warned us and provided several examples of His Divine wrath being poured out (the flood, the captivities, the book of Revelation). But the decision is ours. Free will cannot exist without the possibility of harm to those who are innocent. For that reason people need to be encouraged to take the Scriptures seriously–not be told that the Bible “produces nonsense.” Your column will do nothing but aid irrational and senseless acts, which you claim to abhor. Liberals (both political and religious) rarely see that their philosophy carries with it the seeds of its own (and their) destruction.
Next you complain about God making Adam from clay (the text says “the dust of the ground”; Gene McDaniels’ song about Eve, “A Hundred Pounds of Clay,” isn’t accurate, either) and Eve from Adam’s rib. Would you have preferred that Adam be transformed from a gorilla and Eve evolved from a chimpanzee? Adam is told, after he sins, that he will return to the dust from which he was taken (Gen. 3:19). The significance of woman being taken from man is that henceforth man has come from woman. As Paul said:
Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as the woman was from the man, even so also is the man through the woman; but all things are from God (1 Cor. 11:11-12).
In other words, these are not random, senseless acts on God’s part; He has reasons for what He does–even if we may not always share in that knowledge.
The next “big issue” you raise concerns the progeny of the first couple.
I have a question. Where are they getting their wives? Where did Cain’s wife come from, for that matter? She just appears, nameless and without explanation. Was she his sister? His rib? We are never told. Imagine what the creationists would do with a missing link like that in evolution.
Mr. Kaul, your ignorance of the style of Biblical narrative does not give you the right to criticize what you have obviously made no effort to understand. The Bible frequently passes over large chunks of time because it is not God’s purpose to write a complete history of the world from day one.
In Genesis 4:1-2 we read of Eve’s bearing the sons, Cain and Abel. The same verse, however, describes their occupations. This might suggest to a thinking person that several years had elapsed without any Divine revelation on what occurred during that time period. Then verse three begins with “And in the process of time….” The Scriptures frequently focus on key events without supplying details, about which we may often be curious. Sometimes there are clues; other times there are none. Perhaps we should look at what is revealed and make the proper application instead of wondering about the information we don’t have.
In the case of Cain’s wife, however, there is a little information which suggests an answer to the question. In a summary statement, Genesis 5:4 mentions that Adam “begot sons and daughters.” Mr. Kaul, it is easy to see why you write opinion pieces instead of being an investigative reporter. Most people would reason that, since there were “sons and daughters,” whose names are not otherwise mentioned, Cain married one of them. Of course she was his sister (or niece?); she certainly was not his aunt.
God is not the “bumbler,” Mr. Kaul; your interpretive skills seem to be at the core of the problem. Speaking of “interpretation,” God is addressed uniformly throughout the Bible in the male gender. Pronouns are always He, Him, or His–never She, Her, or Hers. Why is it, then, that you end your article by referring to God as He or She?
The above comments cover your objections, but more needs to be said about “a literal interpretation of the Bible.” God uses figures of speech throughout the Book. Not everything is literal (“I am the vine,” for example). Entire books have been written about the figurative speech which the Scriptures employ. But one must assign literal value to words unless there is a textual reason to do otherwise.
Are Adam and Eve, for example, not real individuals? Do they just stand for all people or an idea (if so, what?)? Are the days of Genesis 1 literal days, or do they stand for indefinite periods of time (eras)? If they are figurative, it is interesting that they all have an evening and a morning. How would you describe a literal day any differently than what is recorded in Genesis 1? And how do you explain the literal Sabbath day? The children of Israel were commanded to rest on the seventh day because God did. “It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed” (Ex. 31:17). The Bible is consistent on this point. There is not some admission later on that the days were symbolic instead of literal. And why could not God create things in seven literal days anyway–and give the world the appearance of age? (Adam and Eve appeared fully mature; so did the animals and the trees.)
Adam is also treated throughout the Scriptures as a historical, real person. He is the first person according to genealogies both of the Old and New Testaments (1 Chron. 1:1; Luke 3:38). Jude speaks of Enoch as being the seventh from Adam (14), and Paul also presents Adam as a literal figure (Rom. 5:14). In fact Paul specifically refers to him as “the first man” (see 1 Cor. 15:22, 45-49). Notice: “The first man was of the earth, made of dust…” (1 Cor. 15:47). There could be no plainer confirmation of Adam’s literal existence.
Then there is Paul’s explanation for the denial to women of the role of leadership in the church:
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression (1 Tim. 2:11-14).
Paul did not suggest any other explanation than what Genesis offers. He did not hint that Adam was the first gorilla to reason or speak. He did not allude to Eve as being one of several women who were created. He did not deny the order of creation but remains consistent with the Old Testament.
For someone to argue that Adam and Eve were not literal or that the days were not literal, Mr. Kaul, you need some sort of basis upon which to build a case. You have none. You admit that the “theory of evolution may not be perfect” or “explain everything”; so why do you attack something that does explain everything and is totally consistent?
You did not target Noah or the flood as non-literal, but most who deny Adam also deny Noah. He too is treated as a historical figure by the inspired writers of the New Testament (Heb. 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5). Jesus also treated both Noah and the ark as literal (Matt. 24:37-38; Luke 17:26-27). Peter actually uses the judgment wrought through the flood as a type of the final judgment (2 Peter 3).
In other words, the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, stands or falls together. Though it consists of many different parts written by as many as 40 individuals over a period of 1,600 years, it nevertheless remains harmonious and consistent throughout. Instead of reading it to find frivolous faults or misapply portions of it for an ignoble purpose, Mr. Kaul, why don’t you try reading it for what it says, “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15)? As Paul affirms:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).