Popular misconceptions about the Nativity

As is a tradition in the Bentley household, I’ve set up my nativity set.  Every Christmas, the nativity is really the only decoration I look forward to setting up - perhaps even more than the tree.  I believe it’s because the Nativity is the most stark reminder of why we celebrate Christmas.  But even though I enjoy setting a good nativity, I know the traditional scenes that decorate lawns and tabletops all over the world aren’t very accurate depictions of the actual nativity. 

Let’s start with the trip to Bethlehem.  The Christmas card image of Joseph walking through the desert at night, while leading Mary who is riding a donkey isn’t found anywhere in the Scriptures.  Since the purpose of the journey was a census/tax, then all of Mary’s and Joseph’s family would have probably been traveling together.  They would have all been of the same house and lineage, afterall.  Furthermore, they would have likely been together when the Baby was born.  Did neither Mary nor Joseph have any living parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, or siblings?  Where are they in the nativities?

Next, the couple didn’t necessarily arrive in Bethlehem the very night of Jesus’ birth, as if often depicted in films.  The Bible merely says that she delivered Jesus, “while they were there” (Luke 2:6).  More precisely, the verse says, “while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered,” strongly suggesting that she spent that remaining part of her pregnancy in Bethlehem.  They could have been there for days, weeks, or even months!  

My next point is probably the most controversial and puts me at odds with most Christians but I don’t believe Jesus was born in a stable.  The word translated as inn in the KJV (Strong’s 2646, kataluma, καταλύμα) is the same word used in Mark 14:14 to refer to the room where Jesus had the Last Supper.  In Mark, the word is translated as guestchamber and suggests it was just an area in a residence available for guests.  Typical Jewish homes in the 1st century weren’t spacious buildings with many bedrooms.  Instead, they were smaller buildings built upward with a second floor.   Mundane living, cooking, and family gathering was done on the 1st floor during the day.  At night, the animals (typically some goats or maybe a donkey) were brought inside, and the family slept on the 2nd floor.  As already discussed, Mary and Joseph would have had family in Bethlehem and they likely would have been staying with them.  Because of the census, many members of the same family were probably staying in the same house, making the normal sleeping areas overcrowded.  This, combined with Mary nearing delivery and so would have had difficulty climbing to the 2nd floor, means Mary and Joseph may have been sleeping on the 1st floor where the animals were kept.  This is the type of situation Jesus likely was born into - a poor, overcrowded home - not a stable.

The final misconception many people have about the Nativity is that the wisemen weren’t there!  This point really isn’t debateable.  The coming of the wise men discussed in Matthew 2 happened when Jesus was nearing 2 years old.  Matthew 2:16 says that Herod ordered the murder of all children up to two years old “according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.”  In other words, the wise men had seen the “star” as long as two years earlier and had just then arrived to worship the Savior.  I should probably do a separate post about the Star and the wise men.  

When I point out these little details, some people despair.  I’m not sure why.  I guess it’s because it upsets the scene of that night they have always pictured in their minds but there’s no need to lament.  The most important details about Jesus’ birth have been recorded correctly.  It’s the message given by the angel to the shepherds in Luke 2:8-14:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.   And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.  And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,  Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Wow, that is good news!!

Science versus reality

There is a video series on YouTube titled, The Arrogance of Creationism (I’ve linked to video 4 here).  It’s hosted by a belligerent evolutionist who posts under the name, King Crocoduck.  By the way, for the sake of brevity, I’m going to be referring to King Crocoduck as KC.  

For those who might not be familiar with the term, a crocoduck is an imaginary creature made popular by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron to highlight evolution’s glaring shortage of transitional forms.  It’s a hypothetical critter that is ½ crocodile and ½ duck.  I’m fairly certain the word was made in half-jest but evolutionists have seized upon it and now tout it as an example of creationists’ supposed lack of understanding of evolution.  But I’m not really going to talk about Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, or even King Crocoduck for that matter.  Instead, I’m going to talk about a point KC made in his series, namely that science is the best tool for examining reality.

KC begins the video with this thought: You know, the most remarkable thing about science is that it works.  It consistently produces reliable results that have revolutionized our species in a way that no other way of thinking ever has.  

Hmm.  I will grant that science has made great contributions to our way of life - obviously - and science benefits us in different ways than things like theology or philosophy benefit us.  But does he mean science is the best way to understand reality?  Why, yes!  That’s exactly what he means.  He says it overtly later when he says, Theology and philosophy simply cannot compete with science if the goal is to construct accurate models of reality.  I literally laughed out loud about 58 seconds into the video when KC says, Science works. Hate the method for being so rigorous – hate the conclusions for not conforming to your expectations – but do NOT deny its power!  He sounds like a supervillain.  

KC exhibits a trait common among evolutionists; it’s the flaw of scientism. PBS.org defines scientism this way:

“Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc [sic] worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.”

I’m sure evolutionists would reject themselves being compared to religious fundamentalists but if the shoe fits….  Frankly, I find it hilarious that zealous evolutionists can’t see the religious nature of their faith-like science.  As a world-view, scientism suffers from many flaws.  I can’t touch on all of them in a single post but I will touch on some of the most obvious difficulties.  

Let’s start with morality.  Is there really such a thing as morality? Certainly the universe doesn't care what we do. Science can only describe what happens but can't say if a thing is right or wrong. What some might call “murder” is just one animal killing another. It happens all the time in nature and it's no more wrong than an apple falling from a tree. Theology and philosophy are far better tools for examining the reality of good and evil.

Also, does something like beauty exist?  Science can study how a person responds to things we say are beautiful but - again - is anything objectively beautiful?  A fiery sunset, a snow-capped mountain, or a starry sky are all just things that animals likely don’t even notice.  Yet we look at these things and see they are sublime.  Why?  To even begin to answer, we must resort to philosophy or - dare I say -  regard the Creator!

Science is also limited when examining history.  Pick any person from history and try to prove – scientifically – that he really lived.  Is there scientific evidence, for example, of Washington crossing the Delaware?  The best evidence we have for people or events of antiquity is what has been written down about them. The evidence we have for the life, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus is the same type of evidence we have for Columbus having sailed to the Americas.

Speaking of miracles, scientism is also at a disadvantage when examining miracles. At about 6:27 in the video, KC says, “The bottom line is this: scientists don't interpret evidence in a manner that fits an a priori conclusion.” KC is wrong. Secular scientists do have a bias – an a priori commitment to naturalism.  Here’s a quote I’ve cited many times before:

“"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.” Scientific American Magazine, July 2002

Now, there is no scientific reason to believe every phenomenon must have a natural cause. It's an assumption – a tenet that cannot be observed anywhere in the universe. So, if a miracle has occurred in reality, evolutionists would have to deny it happened on no grounds other than a religious-like faith in scientism.

The worst thing about scientism, though, is that it retards critical thinking. Skepticism is supposed to be at the heart of scientific inquiry. Once a majority of scientists accept any particular conclusion, it becomes, “settled science.” Any expression of doubt about the conclusion is met with ridicule, insults, and the label of being a “science denier.”  In the Bible, when Joseph learned that Mary was pregnant, he sought to end their engagement (Matthew 1:18-19).  He did this because he understood how a woman gets pregnant.  If he had stubbornly clung to that belief after the appearance of the angel, he would not have been denying science - he would have been denying reality!!

KC is talking about using science to construct accurate models of “reality.” That's a pretty tall order because reality includes EVERYTHING including morality, history, beauty, emotions, and miracles. If Jesus walked on water, fed the multitude, healed the sick, and rose from the dead, that's reality even if we can't study it scientifically.  I'm less interested in studying things scientifically and more interested in learning what is true!