I am currently in the middle of reading the excellent 1985 science-fiction novel, CONTACT, by Carl Sagan. Easily one of the most telegenic and capable physicists of his day, Sagan (who died in 1996) taught millions about the wonders of the universe and the possibilities of science. To this day, decades after his death, clips of his TV show Cosmos continue to be rewatched in great numbers. Sagan’s casual knowledge of all things astronomy, physics, and scientific history (all spoken in his often imitated, frog-like voice) made him a champion to young nerds everywhere, myself included. His shoes have yet to be filled, though Dr. Brian Cox comes close.
Contact was adapted into a feature film in 1997 and it’s one of my favorites. I had never read the book but, on a lark, I picked up a first edition hardback and have been reading it for the past few days. I’m impressed by Sagan’s ability to explain extremely complex concepts on a level that someone like me—who is less than an amateur—can grasp.
Nevertheless, in the words of Jesus, “I have somewhat against him.”
Sagan was a renowned anti-Bibleist. He was not an atheist as he believed it was too arrogant a position to say “I know there is no God.” Instead, he took an agnostic position, while conceding that the commonly held view of agnostics was that they were people who “couldn’t make up their minds about what they believed.” That wasn’t Sagan. In his words, he held to the notion that there could be a higher power but that he has not seen the evidence of such a being, nor has he seen proof that such a being did not exist. Where he did hold a firm opinion was that the Bible was not a message from any higher power.
In the novel Contact, the central character is very much a “self-insert” (a character who is basically the author, saying and reacting in all the ways the author would, allowing him to use the character to express all his own ideas, etc): She’s a pure agnostic, astrophysicist, math whiz, with a gift of gab, a sharp wit, and a firm disregard for the Bible. She’s Sagan.
Early in the book we get a litany of Biblical criticisms that made me stop and consider, each one in turn, to see if there was any validity to them. After it was over and the story continued, I paused and thought to myself: “Is that the best you’ve got, Sagan?”
Needless to say, if one of the most scientifically capable minds of his generation can only muster up criticisms such as these…I suppose I shouldn’t be disappointed; I am unsurprised.
Let’s take them in turn…
Are there two contradictory creation accounts?
No, there is one creation account (Genesis 1), followed by a quick summary as a lead-in to the next thing Moses wanted to talk about, namely the creation of woman for man, etc (Genesis 2). The same is true in reverse, by the way, though Sagan didn’t mention this: Genesis 1 mentions “male and female” being created by God (Genesis 1:27), but it’s not until Genesis 2 that we actually read about the forming of woman. Is that a contradiction? No, it’s grammatical license, something a writer like Carl Sagan would ordinarily overlook as a non-issue in books against which he had no preconceived bias. Moses talked about Eve in passing before describing her creation. Remember that the inspired writer is not recording brand new information, but is putting to paper the details of a creation account that had been passed down through oral recitation for generations. People knew God made woman and man and all the animals and celestial bodies, etc. No one originally read Genesis 2 and thought Moses was contradicting himself. They all understood he was repeating himself.
God made light (night/day) before the sun?
Yes (Genesis 1:3-5; Genesis 1:14-18). Sorry there’s not a more technical answer to give. The fact is, arguing the impossibility of there being light without something generating that light is like arguing the impossibility of the universe without something generating the universe!
Eat that, big bang theorists!
Once you accept that nothing cannot make something you are led to the conclusion that Something made something. The universe was created. Once you accept that, it’s no big deal at all to imagine the Creator making things in whatever order He desired. God made the light first and then made the generator (the stars, including our sun) to produce more light from henceforth. I think of it in the same way that God made things fully formed. Eve was made to be a woman, fully grown, not a baby with twenty+ years of growing to do. The chicken came first, not the egg. The light came first, not the sun. God made the day light to shine on the earth and then, later made the sun, whose light takes eight minutes to reach us. God also made the night light to shine on the earth, and then later made the moon to reflect the sunlight (taking 1.3 seconds to reach the earth).
Where did Cain get his wife?
Adam and Eve had more than three children. Cain, Abel, and Seth are well known but many sons and daughters were born to the first people (Genesis 5:4). Cain married a sister. That opens up a whole host of other questions, all of which have been answered many times over the years, but Sagan didn’t bring them up and this daily bread is turning into a daily loaf, so let’s move on to the next one.
What about all the terrible things that were done by supposed “heroes” of the Bible?
They were terrible. Abraham lied. Moses murdered. Lot offered his daughters to rapists. David committed adultery and had his lover’s husband killed. On it goes. The Bible almost never stops to say “by the way it was bad that he did this…” The lack of such narrator-interjection is not a hint that the author or Author supports such sins. On the contrary, sin is repeatedly condemned in the Bible, and if you read the text you can find many examples were the disapproval of those actions is, indeed, obvious. David was confronted by Nathan and rebuked for his crime, for example. Nevertheless, it’s true, the Bible’s human writers did not stop their narratives to remind us that it’s wrong to lie or murder. Maybe that’s because the Bible wasn’t written to be a Roald Dahl book for children, where the narrator constantly interjects with little lessons of morality. The Bible records the historic deeds of men, all of them flawed, and some of them deeply so. The Bible records the way God used these men, often in spite of themselves, to accomplish His great good. He used sinners to prepare the world for the arrival of the sin-savior. Why? Among other reasons, it is so that He, not those sinful men, could get the glory. We appreciate Abraham despite his mistakes. We admire Moses despite his flaws. On the other hand, we revere God who makes no mistakes and has no flaws, and who used sometimes wicked men to save all men from the punishment for their wickedness.
How was baby Moses recognized as Hebrew just by looking at him?
Maybe, just maybe, he was covered by a blanket that bore the look of a Hebrew cloth (a color, a pattern, a style of stitching). What a silly thing to imagine, that the whole of Holy Writ could be unraveled by something as easily resolved as a snuggle blankie. Yes, in the novel, Ellie soon remembers that circumcision was a Hebrew thing and not an Egyptian thing, but her initial desire to jump at that as a possible breaking point for the Bible illustrates how little benefit of the doubt is given by critics who are so desperate to unravel the Book, they make themselves look silly.
What’s up with Matthew and Luke’s very different genealogical records of Jesus?
Matthew, who wrote to an Israelite audience, recorded Jesus’ genealogy by working his way down from Abraham (the father of the Israelite people) to Joseph, the legal father of Jesus. Was Joseph the biological father of Jesus? No, the rest of Matthew 1 makes that clear, but from a Jewish-legal standpoint, Joseph was his father. Also it’s worth noting that Matthew is clearly creating a picture with his genealogy, by showing the fourteen generations from Abraham to King David, and then another fourteen generations from David to the Babylonian exile, and then another fourteen generations from Babylon to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:17). Considering how someone’s “father” in such records could also refer to a grandfather, etc, it’s not too big a leap to imagine Matthew skipped a person here or there in order to paint the picture he wanted. In the end, he showed the link between Abraham and Jesus, passing through the royalty of David, and ending with an adoptive father in that royal seedline.
Luke, on the other hand, was not concerned with the Israelite-Royalness of Jesus, but with the humanity of the Man. Thus, Luke records the Lord’s genealogy upward from his biological mother. The hangup for some is that Luke says Jesus was the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23), which makes it sound like Luke’s record tracks through Joseph’s line and not Mary’s. Matthew said Joseph’s father was not Heli but Jacob, which only adds to the confusion and possible contradiction. The matter is resovled however when you remember the male-dominate culture of the day: Heli was Joseph’s father-in-law, and thus was the father of Mary, and biological grandfather of Jesus. From there Luke records the lineage all the way up to Adam and to God who made him.
Isn’t “render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar” a command to submit to an evil dictator?
Yep.
How could Jesus, a man of peace, claim to bring “not peace but the sword”?
Because, when the subject is obedience to worldly rulers, Jesus came bringing peace. He was a revolutionary talking about a Kingdom. Typically, such talk was accompanied by a ruler rousing an army, sharpening swords, and going off to battle. Kingdom’s need land, after all. Jesus was a different kind of revolutionary, though. His Kingdom is not of this world, therefore do His people not fight to win territory on this earth (John 18:36). Jesus’ Kingdom is spiritual, and its territory is the heart of the believer.
On the other hand, when the subject is choosing to follow Jesus vs one’s parents, or even one’s government, Jesus says His way will necessarily lead to conflict (the word “sword” is used poetically here—Luke 12:51-53). So, because His people will choose Him, a family member that doesn’t will see that as a betrayal. So be it. Jesus is God and God demands our total allegiance at all others’ expense.
*****
Keep in mind there are longer, more detailed answers to each of these supposed-criticisms and, if you want, I can revisit these and give each their due diligence in the future. Just let me know. In the meantime, have confidence that the Bible you read is not riddled with error as some suppose, nor is it the work of flawed men, but is the product of a higher power who worked through humanity to reveal Himself and His will to us.
~ Matthew