Regarding the question of life on other planets, passages like Psalm 19:1–4 help us to understand God’s purpose in creating things we can’t physically access, but doesn’t give us certainty one way or another about otherworldly life. This is a vital principle in Biblical interpretation. In other words, before we draw a conclusion regarding certainty in any passage, we must earn it exegetically. Consequently, even though there is a textual possibility in one immediate context, the introduction of other (related, of course) contexts helps us to move from possibility to certainty – either in favor of or in opposition to a particular conclusion. So in order to have certainty on the issue of whether there is a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 we must explore other contexts. Does the text itself allow for such a timeframe? It certainly doesn’t immediately and directly eliminate that possibility, but it also does not at all support that possibility as a certainty. Here is another example: in classical dispensational theology, some tried to account for an old earth by inserting an indefinite timeframe (perhaps millions of years) between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. While there is a possibility, there is no certainty, and so I cannot use that passage to teach that there is life on other planets. But is Genesis 1:1 asserting that God created life on other planets? Of course not. I have to admit that the narrow context of Genesis 1:1 does not eliminate that possibility.

Here’s what I mean: I can read Genesis 1:1 and assert the possibility that God also created life on other planets. How can you conclude that 13:1 (tongues of angels) is hyperbolic?Īnswer: In doing exegesis, we understand that many conclusions are possible, but we have a responsibility to understand the distinction between possible and certain. Question: In handling 1 Corinthians 13 you have suggested the conditional clauses including ean were hyperbolic, but in several instances the clause appears not to be hyperbolic: 1 Corinthians 9:16 (“if I preach the gospel” – which Paul did), 10:28 (meat sacrificed to idols was very plausible), 14:6 (“if I come to you speaking in tongues”), and 15:36 (“that which you sow does not come to life unless it dies” – plausible). Of course, oatmeal and ducks are unimportant compared to God’s communication in Scripture, and unfortunately, we sometimes draw conclusions without digging deep enough in the context. Thankfully, she dug a little deeper to arrive at the correct answer. In this simple exchange my lovely daughter concluded the exact opposite of the truth because she was only privy to part of the context. This brief conversation (as I was writing on article on the importance of context) served as a timely reminder to me of the importance of context in any discussion. Oldest Daughter (still puzzled): But I just heard you say oatmeal was YUCK. Oldest Daughter (puzzled): But do you like the way it tastes? Oldest Daughter (just entering the room): Daddy, why don’t you like oatmeal? Lovely Bride (chuckling): Would you like some oatmeal? Me (looking up from my work, and answering loudly and with authority, because I was confident I knew the answer): d–u–c–k… DUCK.

Lovely Bride paused to ask me a question. Meanwhile Oldest Daughter studied at her desk and was just about to get up from her desk and walk to the room where the following dialogue would take place. As I was writing this article, in another room Lovely Bride quizzed Youngest Daughter on her spelling words (including the word “duck”).

Hyperbowl whatever