The natural and the supernatural, separated into categories of science and faith since the times of Enlightenment, were not split apart in the ancient Near East worldview. Ancients believed that the gods were always active in the world in countless and often undetectable ways. The apostle Paul brought this into his dialogue with stoic and Epicurean philosophers at the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-31):
“In him we live and move and have our being,” (from Cretica, Epimenides, Creton poet, ca .600 BC)
“[It is with Zeus that every way has to do,] for we are also his offspring.” (from Phainomena, Aratus, Cilcian poet, 315-240 BC)
Psalm 104, a Hebrew Hymn of Creation with Parallels in Pharaoh Akhenaten’s Hymn, depicts ancient Israel’s cosmology. It may have been written during the times of David and Solomon. Its author is unknown, so let’s call him Naturalist Observer.
Naturalist Observer looked around at the known world at that time and ascribed its ordered functioning to God. He did so, apparently, with background knowledge of Genesis.
Linocut Print by Mark Hearld
The psalm celebrates God’s creative function giving and care taking of the natural world. God is praised for creating a habitable world that continues day after day. Nature has a home to come home to, as God had promised.
As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease. Gen. 8:22
Naturalist Observer has taken note of “the waters”, “the deep”, “springs”, “streams”, “the sea”. Water is contained and directed by God to function in support of life.
Water pours from the sky (vs.13) producing sustenance (vs. 14-16) within habitats of forest, valley and mountains (vs. 16-18)
Note: water is mentioned some 700 times in the Bible – from Genesis 1:2 (the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters) to The Revelation of John 21:1 (no longer any sea, i.e., no more chaos, no more scary deep, no more fear of the unknown)
Verses 19-23 are about time. (For Jews, each 28-day lunar month started with a new moon. Each new day started at 6 o’clock each evening when the sun goes down.)
Naturalist Observer reflects with awe at the breadth of God’s works (vs, 24-26).
Naturalist Observerrecords (vs. 27-30) God’s involvement in the cycle of life. The breath of every living thing depends on God (vs. 29-30). (Note: death before the Fall.)
Naturalist Observer ends his mediation (vs. 31-35) by recounting some of the means God has used to have humankind focus on the purpose of His creation – a sacred place where God dwells with man.
Earthquakes and volcanoes (vs. 32), speak of God’s awesome power to disrupt things and thereby get people’s attention (Ps. 97:4). And once God has their attention, He gives them his terrifying-but-mediated presence and the means to live in his presence (Ex.19:18). God, who touches the mountains and they smoke, is petitioned (Ps. 144:5-6) to come down, show His power, and put fear into the enemies of his people.
The wicked, as they ignore God and live according to their own ways – exchanging the natural for the unnatural (Rom. 1;18-32), bring disorder to what God called good or functioning as purposed. Naturalist Observer, having taken account of God’s ordered creation and knowing from history the disruption man’s wickedness brings to it, intreats God (vs. 35):
Let sinners be consumed from the earth, and let the wicked be no more
Here, Naturalist Observerappears to be thinking of Elijah, the prophets of Baal, and fire from heaven (1 Kings 18).
We would do well, as Naturalist Observer has done, to spend time observing our sacred bio-space and meditating on the work of God’s hands. I do this while walking.
Above all, do not lose your desire to walk. Every day, I walk myself into a state of well-being & walk away from every illness. I have walked myself into my best thoughts. – Søren Kierkegaard
We would do well not to polarize science and faith and make them adversarial, as both function in God’s ordered realm. At certain points, one may view science and faith in conflict. But that’s why study, reflection, and meditation are required – you don’t have all the information. Denying one and accepting the other says that you don’t think God has set up an ordered and functioning cosmos.
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. – Soren Kierkegaard
“I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night.” ― Sarah Williams,Twilight Hours: A Legacy Of Verse
*****
Psalm 104
1 Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, you are very great. You are clothed with honor and majesty, 2 wrapped in light as with a garment. You stretch out the heavens like a tent; 3 you set the beams of your chambers on the waters; you make the clouds your chariot; you ride on the wings of the wind; 4 you make the winds your messengers, fire and flame your ministers.
5 You set the earth on its foundations, so that it shall never be shaken. 6 You cover it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At your rebuke they flee; at the sound of your thunder they take to flight. 8 They rose up to the mountains, ran down to the valleys, to the place that you appointed for them. 9 You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth.
10 You make springs gush forth in the valleys; they flow between the hills, 11 giving drink to every wild animal; the wild asses quench their thirst. 12 By the streams the birds of the air have their habitation; they sing among the branches. 13 From your lofty abode you water the mountains; the earth is satisfied with the fruit of your work.
14 You cause the grass to grow for the cattle and plants for people to cultivate, to bring forth food from the earth 15 and wine to gladden the human heart, oil to make the face shine and bread to strengthen the human heart. 16 The trees of the field are watered abundantly, the cedars of Lebanon that he planted. 17 In them the birds build their nests; the stork has its home in the fir trees. 18 The high mountains are for the wild goats; the rocks are a refuge for the coneys. 19 You have made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting. 20 You make darkness, and it is night, when all the animals of the forest come creeping out. 21 The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. 22 When the sun rises, they withdraw and lie down in their dens. 23 People go out to their work and to their labor until the evening.
24 O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. 25 There is the sea, great and wide; creeping things innumerable are there, living things both small and great. 26 There go the ships and Leviathan that you formed to sport in it.
27 These all look to you to give them their food in due season; 28 when you give to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are filled with good things. 29 When you hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. 30 When you send forth your spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.
31 May the glory of the Lord endure forever; may the Lord rejoice in his works— 32 who looks on the earth and it trembles, who touches the mountains and they smoke. 33 I will sing to the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have being. 34 May my meditation be pleasing to him, for I rejoice in the Lord. 35 Let sinners be consumed from the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul. Praise the Lord!
*****
Brothers, above the starry canopy There must dwell a loving father. Do you fall in worship, you millions? World, do you know your creator? Seek Him in the heavens; Above the stars must he dwell.
Below are three short videos from a series of Oxford Conversations with Oxford Professor Andy Gosler.
Podcast: Professor Gosler talks of his coming to faith, Richard Dawkins, Genesis, faith and science, Darwin, biology, conservation, the natural world, sacred bio-space and more. The paper below is discussed in the podcast.
“As rare metals have become ubiquitous in green and digital technologies, the exceedingly toxic sludge they produce has been contaminating water, soil, the atmosphere, and the flames of blast furnaces.”
“Mining requires the extraction of solid ores, often after removing vast amounts of overlying rock. Then the ore must be processed, creating an enormous quantity of waste – about 100 billion tonnes a year, more than any other human-made waste stream.
Purifying a single tonne of rare earths requires using at least 200 cubic meters of water, which then becomes polluted with acids and heavy metals. On top of that, imagine the destruction and energy required to obtain these essential metals:
18,740 pounds of purified rock to produce 2.2 pounds of vanadium
35,275 pounds of ore for 2.2 pounds of cerium
110,230 pounds of rock for 2.2 pounds of gallium
2,645,550 pounds of ore to get 2.2 pounds of lutecium
Also staggering amounts of ore are needed for other metals.”
This is what digital technology is leading to – for your “safety” (a la COVID digital tracking):
World Economic Forum… “Battle for your Brain”… Under the guise of *safety* every single thought you have will monitored by you boss, police and government. pic.twitter.com/VOURZc1vBQ
“. . . the war I’m talking about is an even broader war. A war that is taking place everywhere on the globe, even as I write, and that involves virtually everyone on the planet, young and old, male and female, military and civilian. It is the war of every government against its own population and every international institution against free humanity. . ..
We have a choice. Either we continue going into this technological, corporate matrix—which involves even things like buying the next generation of iPhone, which they’re already saying is going to have its own fingerprint scanning technology, and all of these corporate, military, Big Brother elements to it that we’re willingly signing up to every day of our lives, and actually paying money for—or we start to create alternative structures which don’t rely on that system. It’s a choice that we have to make in our lives, I would say more quickly than has been apparent at any other time in human history. . ..”
what I am proposing here: the creation of a parallel society.
In sum, we are living in anarchy, as institutions themselves have become nihilistic and weapons of the revolution. The Left, in viral fashion, took over the DNA of America’s institutions, and used them to help destroy their creators.
If we are bewildered why Harvard law-graduate prosecutors let out violent criminals just hours after their arrests; or why hyper-rich, pampered athletes who live in near-apartheid enclaves insult the flag, ignore the National Anthem, and sloganeer woke platitudes, it is because they were taught to undermine the status quo by fundamentally becoming it.
The reason Left Behind: Separating Fact from Fiction is being reprinted is because the Left Behind film franchise was renewed in 2023. Kevin Sorbo stars in “Left Behind: Rise of The Antichrist” with the tagline, “What Happens After the Rapture?” “I think it’s perfect for the time we are living in right now. You see the craziness of what governments are doing around the world right now. The fear, the pandemic, the anger, the hate, the cancel-culture and wokeness,” Sorbo stated in an interview. “If the rapture hasn’t already happened, it feels like it’s on the way.” How many times have we heard that the “rapture” is “on the way”? It was the tagline for most of the 20th century. It’s been more than 50 years since Hal Lindsey’s prophecy blockbuster The Late Great Planet Earth was published and intimated that the “rapture” would take place before 1988. A lot has happened since that false prediction has long been forgotten. I suspect that most people who will watch the new Left Behind film have no idea how inaccurate the prophetic speculators of a previous generation were. . . .
The promised false hope is that Christians will miraculously escape this soon coming “Great Tribulation” that the latest reiteration of the Left Behind film franchise depicts. Watch it, the tagline tells us, so you won’t have to experience the horrors of the Great Tribulation and possibly go to hell! But what if the entire Left Behind approach to Bible prophecy is more fiction than fact? That’s what this book is about.
Looking back, how many of you, during the COVID planned-demic, wore a mask, or worse, received the experimental DNA-altering jab because you feared losing access to someplace or someone, or losing your job? Authoritarians, and their media handmaids, made a point of telling you to fall in line and fear repercussions. Authoritarians control people with narratives that are to be taken as gospel.
If you and I did not practice the gospel of safetyism – a means to scare everyone into conformity under authoritarian rule – then you and I were portrayed as heartless and extremists.
Let us not forget. The abusive, manipulative and corrosive nature of authoritarianism has been evidenced the past two years. Our lives, families, and communities have incurred massive blows from the hammer of unconstrained authority. Liberty – freedom of thought, word and association – be damned!
It has been and continues to be the authoritarians who see themselves as the most intellectually and morally advanced people. They have no issue telling others what to do and making them do so with jackboot mandates. They speak in terms of power to truth.
One ubiquitous televised authority told you that he was “science” – period! Based on this pronouncement, you and I were to immediately end critical thinking and questioning about COVID “science”. We were to submit to the apotheosis of “the science”.
Several authorities used manipulative ways to bring about conformity to their will: This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated!
Now, one authority figure is saying “I think we all agree the most important thing going on in the world right now is the war in Ukraine”. Really?! Ukraine’s border is more important than the massive invasion happening at our own southern border? What this authority figure is really saying is that the military-industrial complex must be served first before the concerns of Americans.
The last two years have also shown us that authoritarians demand that the bio-industrial complex be served at the expense of freedom and human life.
You see, for the military-industrial complex to financially survive it must produce and sell weaponry . . . and war. For the bio-medical complex to financially survive it must mass produce new serums and pandemics to sell.
Repurposed drugs like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are not money makers. Of course, the politicians and media who support the military complex and/or the bio-medical complex and not the repurposed drugs are rewarded.
There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. – Dr. Michael Yeadon, ex-Pfizer VP
Global authoritarians are now telling us to believe in climate change and to be prepared to pay a price to fix it. Yet, scientists say there is no climate emergency.
Those who have read my blog since 2020 know that I haven’t accept COVID authority. I did not get the jab and I will not wear a mask. I have questioned everything that comes from the CDC and on TV. I have witnessed true science being denied so that authoritarians can have their way.
I have linked to hundreds of commentaries that question the validity of COVID “science” via each post’s “Informed Dissent”. I question what is posited as “the science” and gospel truth. I question authority and take on challenges.
What follows is a common authority challenge presented to Christians from the pulpit and elsewhere, as you will see:
The conversation that follows started with a recent social media post that included a video.
The post: What’s your authority – God’s Word or man’s word? The age of the earth issue is not a science VS faith or an interpretation issue, it’s actually an authority issue. And that issue affects the Gospel. Find out how in this episode of Creation Basics.
Does the Bible support evolution or billions of years? Whatever your final authority is will determine how you answer this question.
The video’s premise: “adding billions of years into the Bible destroys the concept of Biblical authority”.
Underlying premises: science is secular thinking; empirical science doesn’t apply to creation origin; “If the Bible isn’t true to the facts of the real world, about the age of the earth, then there is really no reason to trust it . . . “; (and Bible skeptics and atheists might get the upper hand).
Per the video’s premise, I’m a Biblical authority denier for “believing the secular geologic time scale”. To this and to the brazen and distorted underlying premises of Biblical authority and the gospel as compromised by science, I had to write a reply.
My comment to the post:
Wow! This video is messed up. This way of thinking is messed. up. Authority issue? Pitting manmade “Biblical authority” against manmade science authority? What foolishness. The physical world existed long before God gave the cosmos function and order. Genesis tells us that God set up the existing cosmos to be his temple within 7 literal days. Genesis 1 -11 should be understood as being written to ancient Near East people. The Genesis account made sense, in temple terms, to these readers. They understood Genesis as describing functional origins rather than accounts of material origins. Genesis begins with the functional origins of an existing universe that science confirms came into existence billions of years before. Genesis is theological history and science the physical history. I see no conflict.
*****
Marq, a proponent of Answers In Genesis message, replied to my comments:
If the Bible is fantasy than how did it know that there were springs in the oceans, Genesis 7&8?
BTW, God created the earth the seas and all that is in them in six twenty-four-hour days. Although it could be six twenty-hour days.
BTW, if you’d like to refute the Bible try proving abiogenesis. Omne vivum ex vivo. If you can give us the formula to prove abiogenesis, maybe we could then entertain the idea of evolution being plausible.
You see no conflict? Jesus said it was real history. There is your conflict. I can’t trust in someone who is either a liar or is delusional. Maybe you don’t have that problem, but I do.
*****
My reply to Marq:
I didn’t say the Bible is fantasy. The OT was written for us but it wasn’t written to us. It was written to ancient Israel who understood Genesis in temple creation terms- functional terms – and not in physical material creation terms. You are forcing Scripture – taking it out of context – to have it say what you want it to say. I grew up with the same reductionist thinking. I went to Moody Bible Institute. I was taught that Genesis was literal – but Gen. 1-11 is not literal. God used true mythology to give ancient Israel an explanation of origins and operations. BTW: God gave us two Scriptures – the Bible and science. We can learn from both scripture and science while not forcing the other to have it mean something that is not true. The study of scripture and science must include history, ancient history. We must look at all of the evidence God laid out. The people in the ancient world understood things differently than we do. Genesis was written to them so we must read Genesis in their context of language, culture and meaning. which included mythology to explain things. Study the ancient history, the language and culture. God didn’t give us a Sunday School color-in-the-lines paper to take home. He gave us a world to explore.
*****
Marq replied:
I know what you meant, as I have debated theistic evolutionists. I’m saying we have proof of the literal interpretation.
We know from science that springs actually exist and it was written in Genesis 7&8, you know that part you said is mythology. It wasn’t until 1971 that science proved it and it was only postulated by science in the 1960’s.
So, your mythology takes [sic] crumbles into reality. Also, the migration of people in Genesis eleven is also proven by archeology and now it is shown by the Y-chromosome DNA again sowing [sic] it’s not mythology.
It has been proven repeatedly that life only begets life, omne vivum ex vivo, just as Genesis said. Remember paganism has always believed the universe created itself.
Finally, as I said Jesus would be a liar because he taught that Genesis was true history as did the apostle Paul to Areopagus and not an allegory.
As Jesus said, “John 3:12 If when I tell you earthly things, ye believe not, how should ye believe, If I shall tell you of heavenly things?”
Do you believe Jesus raised Himself from the dead? Do you believe He walked on water? Do you believe He raised Lazarus from the dead? If you do, what scientific proof do you have of those events?
*****
My reply to Marq:
You have provided no proof of a literal interpretation. You provided inuendo, circular reasoning and crumbling logic.
You say that science backs up some things in Scripture and therefore proves Genesis 1-11 to be literal and not myth. Based on that you tell me that since science cannot prove other things in scripture therefore scripture trumps science and myth. Let’s talk mythology.
Modern man views mythology as being false. C.S. Lewis, for one, thought otherwise. God, the great storyteller, revealed Himself through different mythologies throughout history. The core ideas behind the myths were “literally” fulfilled in the first century via Jesus of Nazareth’s incarnation, death, and resurrection.
Myths as false?
Jesus spoke to the multitudes in myth-like parables. These tales were not literal historic events. These were allegorical, metaphorical, and symbolic stories that were spoken in contemporary terms. The parables conveyed truth to the listener.
God gave us science so we could explore and understand the physical world that he created. Science is not a discipline that explains things metaphysically just as theology is not a discipline that explains creation in physical terms. Science is NOT in conflict with scripture – except when secularists and fundamentalists make it so. God gave us both science AND scripture to reveal Himself to us. The material world is incredibly important to God – the word became flesh.
Genesis 1-11 is the true myth written to ancient Israel living within a pagan culture. It wasn’t written specifically to a Sunday school class in the ‘50s that had been taught to hate Darwin and evolutionary creation.
Ancient cultures understood all that is not in science-based terms but in metaphysical-based terms. The saw their world as controlled by gods. They had temples to these gods. The temples were thought of as the cosmos. In their way of thinking, the creation of a temple is the creation of the cosmos.
The apostle Paul addressed the god/temple way of thinking during his speech to the Athenians at the Areopagus. He tells them about the “Unknown God” who created the world. He goes on to say that this “Unknown God” does not live in a temple made by human hands. God created a temple out of the cosmos so that people could seek him out and know him.
Genesis 1 is an account of God inaugurating order (out of the existing chaos) and functionality for his cosmic temple. Genesis 1& 2 is not an account of material origins and material preparations for his temple. Genesis 1 & 2 should be understood as a temple-based explanation of creation.
Over 6–24-hour days God ordered the existing chaos (after the Big Bang) and gave it functions. Heaven and earth, sea and dry land, light and dark, night and day, seedtime and harvest, seasons . . . On the seventh day God “rested” in his cosmic temple and oversaw his creation.
The English word “created” used for Genesis 1:1 translation does not help our understanding. The Hebrew word (bara), in its ancient context, does not imply God creating the universe ex nihilo and it does not imply a function-giving interpretation. Within its context in scripture (about 50x) it does seem that ancient Israel viewed things in functional terms rather than material terms.
*****
Marq’s response:
Nice try! But the Y-chromosome and as I said the springs in the seas in ch. 7,8, and 11 shows it is not an allegory.
Just as omne vivum ex vivo destroys any concept of evolution. There is zero evidence of evolution or your logic. Evolution uses circular reasoning which creationists exposed, because evos use fossils to date the rocks and rocks to date the fossils based on their belief of the rock strata presupposition.
Even SCOTUS when evolutionists brought suit to keep creationism out of school could not confirm evolution so SCOTUS said creationism could not be taught because of separation of church and state.
When our own school board in Columbus, Ohio was allowing creationism to be taught alongside evolution in 1976 evolutionists showed up arguing against it saying separation of church and state. Again, they did not present facts because there are none. I was present at the meeting and as always creationists brought facts.
Evolutonists are scared of facts as there are none that a reasonable person would consider. As Richard Dawkins found out when he debated A. E. Wilder-Smith at Oxford University. Wilder-Smith and another creationist of whom I can’t recall his name was able to persuade quite a few people at this bastion of evolutionary dogma.
After it was over Dawkins refused to openly debate and warned other evolutionists not to debate openly.
Instead of engaging me on evidence you too resort to innuendos. As I said if God was just using parables than how did springs (fountains) end up being real? How did Genesis 11 and the migration of Shem, Ham, and Japheth turn out to be true? or omne vivum ex vivo?
You, and your evo friends, are the ones hiding behind mythology.
Let’s settle this argument. Give me the mathematical formula that proves evolution. One that can be demonstrated time and time again.
Stop hiding behind mythology and it takes millions of years to hide behind the fact that you have no answers. Evolution is only in fairy tale books fit for little children.
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, in the same day WERE ALL THE FOUNTAINS OF THE GREAT DEEP WERE BROKEN UP, and the windows of heaven were opened,
Job 38:16 “Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Matthew 24:37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
May God open your eyes.
*****
My reply:
Your words: “the Y-chromosome and as I said the springs in the seas in ch. 7,8, and 11 shows it is not an allegory.” How?!? That literal things existed that science later discovered and therefore Genesis 1-11 could not be a myth explaining existence in temple-making terms to ancient people? So, according to you, everything in Genesis 1-11 must be considered literal because things existed? Your logic makes no sense.
Here’s another example of the same illogic:
“As I said if God was just using parables than how did springs (fountains) end up being real?”
By the same logic, learning some 2000 years after Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan that there were actual Samaritans and Levites in Jesus’ time would mean that what Jesus said in parable format should be discounted as false and not literal authoritative. NB: their literal existence didn’t refute the use of parable by Jesus to speak (the unseen) kingdom truths.
Does everything have to be literal to be proven true? If so, that is a sad commentary on modern man. If so, that supposition also shows that left brain literal thinking has taken over.
Back on track, we are talking about whether Genesis 1-11 is a myth explaining to Israel the setup of a cosmic temple or Genesis as a literal science explanation of creation using 6-7 24 hr. days. Right?
We are talking about whether the cosmos is billions of years old (a science calculated estimate) old or 6-8k years old (a young earth creationist calculated estimate). Right?
The video would have us believe that if we do not accept the authority of scripture – a 6-24 hr. day material creation postulated by Answers in Genesis – then we are misled and are denying scriptural authority. What utter nonsense and pretentiousness! What a con job!
I don’t believe in spontaneous generation. I don’t know any biologists who do. I don’t know anyone who does. Evolution is a scientific theory that doesn’t contradict the Bible. (Note: social Darwinism is not something, as a Christian, I adhere to.) Like with the study of ancient cultures, it is more than OK to look at historical evidence: rock strata, fossil records, and genetics. It is Ok to understand the biogeography of nature. It is OK to study the natural order. It testifies of God.
“The Heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1)
And so it is that understanding of the stars has led scientists to refine the ages of the stars in globular clusters, and now estimate them to be about 13 billion years old. This means that the stars in the globular clusters must have formed within the first several hundred million years of the universe’s existence!
No mythology: The approximate age of the universe can be derived using Hubble’s law: v = H0d where (d) is the distance between two galaxies, (v) their apparent separation velocity, (H0) the expanding universe (Hubble’s) constant. The velocity of the galaxy, aka, redshift, is directly proportional to its distance.
Q.E.D.
*****
Marq’s next response:
Flavius Josephus, Jesus, and all of the Apostles all believed Genesis 1-11 was true chronological history reserved for mankind and not mythological or allegorical account not to be taken as literal.
So, it’s the evolutionists job to prove what is obvious to any casual observer.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
From Flavius Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 1, Chapter 3:9. Now when Noah had lived three hundred and fifty years after the Flood, and that all that time happily, he died, having lived the number of nine hundred and fifty years. But let no one, upon comparing the lives of the ancients with our lives, and with the few years which we now live, think that what we have said of them is false; or make the shortness of our lives at present an argument, that neither did they attain to so long a duration of life, for those ancients were beloved of God, and [lately] made by God himself; and because their food was then fitter for the prolongation of life, might well live so great a number of years: and besides, God afforded them a longer time of life on account of their virtue, and the good use they made of it in astronomical and geometrical discoveries, which would not have afforded the time of foretelling [the periods of the stars] unless they had lived six hundred years; for the great year is completed in that interval. Now I have for witnesses to what I have said, all those that have written Antiquities, both among the Greeks and barbarians; for even Manetho, who wrote the Egyptian History, and Berosus, who collected the Chaldean Monuments, and Mochus, and Hestieus, and, besides these, Hieronymus the Egyptian, and those who composed the Phoenician History, agree to what I here say: Hesiod also, and Hecatseus, Hellanicus, and Acusilaus; and, besides these, Ephorus and Nicolaus relate that the ancients lived a thousand years. But as to these matters, let every one look upon them as he thinks fit.
II Peter 3:1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this FACT, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
******
My reply:
“What is obvious to any casual observer” is that you are dropping a lot of names and scripture bombs to conceal your lack of a coherent argument. None of your references support a literal 6-24 hr day creation. They just refer to creation as creation.
Of course, Jesus believed in creation. NT writers told us that he is the creator (Jn. 1, Col. 1). But nothing in the NT tells us that Jesus spoke of or believed in literal 6-24 hr. days of creation.
Colossians 1: 15 “He is the image of God, the invisible one, The firstborn of creation”.
How should we understand the “firstborn of creation” words from this early Christian hymn? In literal terms? By the authority of scripture, we can fully acknowledge the metaphor that Jesus is the “firstborn of creation.”
A metaphor helps us understand a truth we cannot fully grasp. This, it seems to me, is how Genesis 1-11 was written – in true myth to an ancient people.
Remember the words of Jesus: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Those around him took it literally. It wasn’t until the resurrection that the disciples understood what he meant.
Remember Jesus saying “If you’ve got ears, then listen!” after he told them parables. The multitudes loved the literal feedings, the literal healings, and the literal exorcisms. They came to him for the literal. But the things of the kingdom of God, expressed in parables, were not literal enough for most of them.
Jesus telling Nicodemus that he must be born again confused him.
There are many, many metaphors, allegories and true myths in scripture. Is Song of Solomon literal? Should I cut off my hand if it makes me sin? Genesis 1-11 as true myth should not upset anyone’s theology.
One last word on Genesis 1-2.
In the last two chapters of the Revelation of John we find that God’s cosmic temple-based explanation of creation, written as true myth to ancient Israel in Genesis 1-2, is fully realized.
“I heard a loud voice from the throne, and this is what it said: “Look! God has come to dwell with humans! He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them and will be their God.” Rev. 21: 3
The peace of the Lord be with you.
*****
Marq’s next response:
I forgot to mention that I went to a Messianic Synagogue to learn Hebrew. They believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis and Yeshua as God incarnate.
They were also taught as children the literal interpretation of Genesis as Jews. In fact, most orthodox Jews believe in the literal translation of Genesis. Again, this counters your argument that they did not believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.
*****
My friend, I cannot vouch for what others think or for the generation of their beliefs.
As I understand it, you believe the verb bara’ translated as “create” infers a material creation of the universe that lasted 6 -24 hr days. The seventh day is tacked on as a non-workday, I guess.
We would both agree that Hebrew lexicons translate the verb bara’ as “create”. That is the closest English word. The definition given for bara’ is to create, shape and form.
Bara’ (Gen. 1:1) can be God choosing to give order and purpose to the material creation out of the existing chaos. Bara’ can describe a formative process and a function-giving process.
Examples of bara’ would be an artist who “creates” a painting or an architect who “creates” a temple. The materials are there and the scope/vision is there. Creation is the application of materials and vision to produce the desired outcome.
That creation understanding is my understanding of the literal 7 days of Genesis. God gave functions and roles to the existing creation to support mankind. Man was created to be the caretaker-priest of his temple creation. We find out later that Adam, an archetype of caretaker-priest mankind, needed someone to help with the caretaking of the temple. Hence Eve, derived from one-half of Adam and another such archetype.
Reading the 7 days of Genesis in functional terms and not in material creation terms, makes sense. God is inaugurating his cosmic temple over the 6 24 hr days. On the seventh God “rests’ or sits and rules in his cosmic temple. Ancient people would understand the temple building, temple inauguration, and priests serving temple gods.
Note: the temple theme begins in Genesis 1 and goes through scripture to the last chapters of John’s Revelation. Temple creation, tent-tabernacle, Solomon’s temple, the second temple, new creations as the temple of God, and finally God dwelling with man and . . .
“I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God the Almighty is it temple, together with the Lamb.” Rev. 21: 22
Finally, my initial comment was directed to the video posted. I rejected its premise:
The age of the earth issue is not a science VS faith or an interpretation issue, it’s actually an authority issue. And that issue affects the Gospel
The Catholic church also had “authority” issues. Those issues led to the Inquisition to combat “heresy”. The Inquisition generated dread – people feared being rejected by the church and loss of salvation. There were horrific consequences if they did not profess whatever they were told to profess. They accepted, out of fear of losing their salvation, whatever they were told to accept. The video reminded me of the Inquisition and how church authorities felt threatened by those questioned what their authority dictated.
People of science should never be marginalized and ostracized by the Christian community.
I’m done here. Thank you for the back and forth.
The peace of the Lord be with you.
*****
Marq’s final words:
Ultimately, what you are saying is that the universe created God?
The first Law of Thermodynamics says the universe cannot create itself and the 2nd Law says it had to be created.
This is just common logic, otherwise, God is just as material and useless as the pagan gods and Jesus would just be a clown.
It’s funny because the Catholic Church has always believed in evolution and the scientific community which is why they adopted the pagan Aristotle and Ptolemy. It’s the evolutionists who are running the inquisition. They are saying that evolution is a fact that needs no proof.
Again, the only proof you’ve proffered for evolution is that Genesis was meant as an allegory.
Since the Laws of Thermodynamic are mathematical proofs and cannot be refuted, evolutionists try to say we don’t understand so their sycophants fall in line. You do not demand that evos put up or shut up.
You’d think after thousands of years they’ve spent trying to convince people they could put something together that was coherent.
May God open your eyes to the obvious truth.
And . .
Thank you too for conversing!
**********
Marq’s replies reveal that he totally missed what I was saying all along. Or, he just didn’t want to deal with what I was saying except in scripted terms. Marq’s final words are defensive and dismissive. He does not offer new information in support of a literal 6-day 24 hr. creation. Before that, he claimed that others believe that his position is true and therefore that proves it to be true.
And like the unconscionable video message, Marqe pits science against scripture, as if God’s own material creation would betray God’s own word to us.
Legal experts from Jerusalem set up a similar adversarial scenario – “it’s not the way we say it’s supposed to be” vs. the way it is. The Gospel according to Mark chapter 3, vs. 22-30 records Jesus being accused of being possessed by an unclean spirit because he cast out demons. His response: “How can the Accuser cast out the Accuser?”
And how could material creation betray the creator? Even the stones would be shouting out praise to the Living Word if all else is silent!
In my responses I never said or implied that the universe created itself or that God didn’t create the universe. I was stating that scripture, and Genesis in particular, is not scientific revelation. The opening chapters of Genesis are true myth written to an ancient people and their understanding.
Apparently, he thinks that since I am positing Genesis 1 & 2 as true myth – God’s way of explaining creation to an ancient people – that I am saying God didn’t create the world. God did create the universe and, as I tried to convey, perhaps not in the way that Marq insisted it happened. And, of course, the laws of thermodynamic operate in the physical world.
I don’t read Genesis, and scripture as a whole, as scientific revelation. Scripture is a revelation of identity, function and purpose. We find out from scripture who God is and who we are and what we are to be about.
To convey this in contemporary terms, God used the culture, language and understanding of an ancient writer (and every writer of scripture since) to convey what He wanted the people of that time to know. Genesis was written in their ancient terms.
I responded to Marq, not for a debate, but so that I could present another look at Genesis 1-11. Not once did he respond to my temple creation viewpoint. Instead, he tied me in, as if going by a young earth creationist playbook, with evolutionists and the godless cabal who deny the authority of “6-day 24 hr. material creation” and therefore the authority of the Bible. (Here I am being accused of being a scripture denier, not a “COID science denier”.)
The opening of the video presents a red herring argument: “scripture doesn’t mention billions of years” Well, scripture is not a scientific journal of events.
Scripture also doesn’t mention, among many other things, that the earth revolves around the sun. Science figured that out and church authoritarians rallied against such a finding because it didn’t align with their teaching. Huh.
Again, scripture is a revelation of identity and relationships. Genesis 1 & 2 names the functions of the cosmic temple, Adam and Eve are the named archetypes of mankind, genealogies follow, Jesus names the twelve, Saul is renamed Paul, new names are handed out as recorded in the John’s Revelation. Names and relationships.
What the video would have us believe: “If you don’t affirm what I saying about a literal Genesis account as being authoritative then the gospel you believe cannot be authoritative.” This setup is not just childish and unconscionable. It is a demonic point of view.
Because science and scripture present different ways of understanding reality, they will not look like they sync. And that is not a justification to reject either one. To suggest that science should be rejected in order to support “Biblical creation” is also a demonic point of view.
Scripture is authoritative. Interpretation is not. Every directive from an authority should be questioned, whether it be from pastor, priest, Pope, Jesuit, professor, the CDC or politician. Don’t roll over and play dead. Study and become convinced of what you believe. As a trailblazer who will not stand being shamed for referring to scripture and science maps, “carve out a straight path for the word of truth- the gospel” (2 Tim. 2:15).
Recall that Jesus had to constantly inform and upbraid legal experts and Pharisees. Many of these self-styled authoritarians presented themselves as “the most intellectually and morally advanced people” in the community and therefore qualified to communicate authoritatively. But they had settled on interpretations of God’s word that missed the mark. As synagogue authorities they passed on their interpretations to the communities in which they lived.
It is a serious matter to Jesus if the interpretation and teachings of God’s word causes anyone to stumble (see Matt. 18:1-7). And remember: the only one who possesses all truth is Jesus, and he served as a model of meekness.
“The lawsuit, filed in October, 2021 by Liberty Counsel, represents more than 500 current and former health care workers who were unlawfully discriminated against and denied religious exemptions from the COVID shot mandate.”
People are turning down Remdesivir at hospitals, so the hospitals are still giving Remdesivir to them, but under another name: Veklury Generic Name: Remdesivir Brand Name: Veklury Same deadly fauci drug.
The following Tweet appeared in my Twitter feed. As one can see, the Tweet is not a response to a particular person. Rather it is a scourging of the topics discussed in a Tennessee Sunday School, as noted in the article posted. It is also obvious that the Tweet was meant for Janet Mefferd’s followers. My response was to the content of the Tweet and its implications for those who call Jesus “Lord”.
There were several responses to my reply, including, “Total capitulation. So sad professing Christians think they need to do this.” It was if I had succumbed to the world and had become a carnal Christian in accepting a scientific understanding of creation.
One woman had a most vehement disagreement with me regarding my use of science. She has since blocked me.
Her arguments against my positing evolutionary creation were not arguments at all. Rather, she quoted Scripture verses denouncing me as promoting false doctrine and 1 Cor. 1:27:
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
And in keeping with Mefferd, she also posted slippery slope warning diatribes denouncing evolutionary creation as the road to outer Darwinism.
This woman’s responses implied that since I held to a science-explained creation that I did not know Scripture and that I was not a Rock-solid Fundamentalist and therefore already on a slippery slope. She would only accept a literal 6-day (24 hour/day) creation reading of Genesis. Here is one of my responses to her:
You can't debate the merits, you can only label and dismiss me as some liberal or SJW or nutcase. W/https://t.co/7fnFW9hQqr and many other scientists and theologians I am in good company. Science shows me that the earth is billions of yrs old. Scripture, that God is Good Creator
To allay misunderstanding, I was not trying to win an argument when I posted my replies. I did state my position in my initial response. I did try to further discussion of the science versus Scripture and Faith issue that seems so prevalent in Christian circles. I did try to jump start a conversation about evolutionary creation. And, in so doing I implied that it is appropriate to discuss science in church. I also felt that I had to stand up for scientific study, as nature is God’s revelation to us along with Scripture.
But, the minds of those who replied were in lock-down mode. They would not hear of such a thing. They became defensive. And, that is the implication and force of Tweets like the above: to shut down any thinking that comes from outside the narrative and to reinforce the closely held narrative. I am reminded of Plato’s cave allegory (see below). The mind-shackled use the shadows – illusions- on a cave wall as their shared narrative.
As anyone can observe today, groups on both Right and Left have their hard-drive narratives and fire-walls set up against any knowledge that would corrupt their narrative. Offensively, ultraconservative Fundamentalists use dictatorial piety with a formatted Sola Scriptura narrative to counter-spam the ultraliberal dictatorial piety of Progressives and their formatted Sola Pretium Affectionis (Values) narratives. And, vice versa.
Both groups use virtue signaling in social media to reinforce their narrative to their followers and to ward off criticism of and debate about their narrative. Both groups use slippery slope scenarios to buttress their narratives against challenges. Both group’s narrative reinforcements are those whose personal version of God is one created in their own image. As such, both group’s absolutist narratives allow one to presume to know all there is about an issue. Both group’s narratives are for the simple-minded: the narratives make no demands of you; the narratives require no effort or thought; the narrative only requires that you repeat its words over and over. But, as someone also observed, “Nothing ventured, nothing gained” (Chaucer, 1374).
You can go to a church week after week and have your narrative reinforced. Or, you can go to church and have your narrative brought out into the open and challenged. Jesus challenged hard-wired fire-wall protected absolutist dictatorial narratives. Disciples followed to hear more. Others walked away and back to their safe space narrative cave.
In the world where a Christian’s replies instantly equate my inquiry and debate to heresy and to precipitous slippery slope scenarios or to Fundamentalism, nothing is ventured and nothing is gained. Fear of the unknown is what is being defended against with such rebuffing Tweets directed at me from the narrative cave. The Gospel was NOT being defended or upheld for all to see with such dismissive Tweets directed at me from the narrative cave. And that’s because the Gospel is not cave-ridden. Those who embrace the Gospel walk in the light. But for some, tweeting from the safe space narrative cave about slippery slopes outside somewhere is all that matters.
The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge,
for the ears of the wise seek it out.
Proverbs 18:15
As iron sharpens iron,
so one person sharpens another.
"Nothing can be learned without the patient study of difficult texts. The one mercy is that – with few exceptions – the greatest works of modern philosophy are short" Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey
— Roger Scruton Quotes (@Scruton_Quotes) May 12, 2018
“Despite the efforts of a few evangelical intellectuals like B. B. Warfield and James Orr, to work patiently through the mid-level science literature of the day, evangelicalism as a whole relied more on popular argumentation aimed at democratic audiences, rather than on discriminating advanced learning, to counter the anti -Christian uses of modern science. Powerful social forces fueled this populist approach.”
“The fact that the human and chimpanzee genomes exhibit striking synteny with only subtle differences in genomic organization has been known for some time, based on chromosome staining and molecular hybridization techniques.The main differences between human and chimpanzee chromosome sets are nine intrachromosomal inversions and one chromosome fusion. These observations have now been confirmed at the molecular level by whole-genome sequencing of humans and chimpanzees.”
“Now we Reformed Christians are wholly in earnest about the Bible. We are people of the Word; Sola Scriptura is our cry; we take Scripture to be a special revelation from God himself, demanding our absolute trust and allegiance. But we are equally enthusiastic about reason, a God-given power by virtue of which we have knowledge of ourselves, our world, our past, logic and mathematics, right and wrong, and God himself; reason is one of the chief features of the image of God in us. And if we are enthusiastic about reason, we must also be enthusiastic about contemporary natural science, which is a powerful and vastly impressive manifestation of reason. So this is my question: given our Reformed proclivities and this apparent conflict, what are we to do? How shall we think about this matter?”
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” [1 Timothy 1.7]
-Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) (emphasis mine)
“Once, Milton, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Shelly “gave me great pleasure” and “I took intense delight in Shakespeare.” -Charles Darwin
~~~
“In his old age Darwin admitted, “I have lost the power of becoming deeply attached to anyone.” He assured Tennyson that there was nothing in his theories to prevent anyone believing in a supreme being. But he did not think about God or the possibility of an afterlife. He closed his mind to speculation about the infinite and concentrated on worms. One is tempted to feel that he deliberately shut his eyes to the ultimate consequences of his work, in terms of the human condition and the purpose of life or the absence of one.” Paul Johnson (emphasis added)
~~~
“It is hard to believe that Darwin himself would have accepted this huge, bottomless emptiness of life. Or, rather, perhaps because he felt it yawning, he averted his eyes from the big issues and focused them on the small: climbing plants, orchids, insectivorous plants, worms. The truth is long before he died, he had lost control over his own theory. The point at which he lost control can be precisely identified. It was when he decided that natural selection, to be of internally coherent, has to be comprehensive and universal. But if this is so, then there is no essential difference between man and any other animal.The differences, however obvious and seemingly enormous, are of degree and not of kind.”
Paul Johnson (emphasis added)
~~~
Enter the paradox, missed by Darwin: “It can more easily be grasped if we see natural selection as destructive as well as constructive-and not only destructive but self-destructive. Once natural selection had created man, it was in its own danger zone. Human beings think…are conscious, and self-conscious.
It is at this stage in evolution that natural selection falters and ceases to work with all its previous triumphalism and certitude.” (emphasis added)
From Johnson’s concise, detailed and deliberative biography we learn that Charles Darwin inherited genius stock-“a classic case of genetic inheritance”. We read of Darwin’s luminous and wealthy patriarchs-of his paternal and maternal grandfathers and of his father. We learn of Darwin’s moneyed care and education upbringing. Self-education would soon become a way of life for Darwin.
Darwin married a godly wife, Emma Wedgwood, a “clever, educated, equable, hardworking, industrious, economical, and, not least, sensitive” woman. Together they had many children together.
Darwin, a lover of botany and the author of On the Origin of the Species, we are told, never involved himself with the study of anthropology. He also never regarded math to any usable extent. Statistics were never his bailiwick.
It is likely that Darwin never met up with and had never studied the Christian Monk Gregor Mendel’s foundational work, a well-read paper on genetics in 1866 and a writing that would support natural selection. Mendel’s pea hybrid work would give birth to the science of genetics.
Darwin, during his Beagle voyage focused on botany, insects, flora and fauna in general and the facial expression of savages such as those of Tierra del Fuego. At home he read the local press. He was deeply concerned about how other people viewed everyone else, scientists in particular, who differed from what he considered church dogma..
Darwin’s s fear of being ostracized on earth with his published work coupled with his revulsion of any thought of eternal ostracization-punishment in hell forever-kept Darwin spiritually self-ostracized from the Creator. He turned away from God and turned inward with a self-defensive mode of living.
At one point Darwin, we read, became enthralled with Thomas Malthus’ theory of overpopulation, an unsubstantiated and later refuted theory. Malthus’ theory would become lifelong dogma for Darwin. At the same time Darwin also denied any Christian accounting of creation.
“Ever since he became a systematic naturalist, Darwin had been an evolutionist. That is, he dismissed the account of Genesis of the separate creation of the species by Yahweh as symbolic and not to be taken literally. They had some way evolved. There was nothing new, surprising or alarming in this.” Others before him held similar views. See Chapter Three, “The Loss of God.”
In the chapter titled “Evils of Social Darwinism” Paul Johnson postulates, and I agree with his assessment, that a hybrid of natural selection-Social Darwinism-has led to all manner of evil: “Those who studied progress were hugely attracted by Darwin’s notion of natural selection as a relentless self-driving machine, “daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation…silently and insensibly working…at the improvement of each organic being…” Darwin’s words “Struggle” and “Survival” would later be found in the works and placards of atheists and agnostics and of German philosophers. The words would be used to secure featherbedding in the humanist realm of law as well as in sociology, psychology and psychiatry. Culture would make the leap of Social Darwinism.
“Struggle” and “Survival” would be the seed words for the monstrous propagandized outgrowths of Fascists and of Socialists and of a Hitler and Marx and Engels and for the crushing rollout of Stalinist Communism.
These same words were used to foment the works of Francis Galton and his sterilization eugenics program, a program practiced in many nations!
Under such a program it would be decided by someone(s) who was “desirable” or “undesirable”. If a person was found “undesirable”, then that person was “unfit to procreate” and then sterilized. Soon, the same eugenics process would be used to decide which races were “unfit to live.” You can take the thread of thought from here.
Today, Progressives want to define life: who is “fit to live” and who is “unfit to live” (e.g., abortion, death panels); who is to benefit and who isn’t to benefit (class and race warfare). Here’s a sample of the Progressive’s rejection of anything that might rattle their cages, written by an apparent Epicurean atheist:
The website Slate, a website where myopia studies itself in the mirror; where intelligence and moral absolutes proudly go to be reprogrammed into “who’s the bigger hypocrite” moral relativism, has a review of Johnson’s book by Mark Joseph Stern.
Incidentally, Slate provides its sycophantic readers with atheistic Progressive hubristic feel-good dispersions and mostly Turkish Delight.
The article written by “red in tooth and claw” Mark Joseph Stern apparently hoped to incite a circle of atheistic humanist commentator wagons around the theory of evolution by using a well-known electric atheist prod-a rant that desperately wanted make the point that the “Bible is wrong”.
Stern wanted to protect the atheist’s raison d’etre-a material world without moral agency (read accountability) and certainly one without Absolutes. A Darwinian Social scientism in lieu of God is more to their liking, more controllable and less scary.
Though mostly accepting of historian Johnson’s overview of Darwin’s life and work, Stern’s feathers are ruffled by Johnson’s interpolation of Darwin’s natural selection. He ends his piece with reassuring hubris: “But no thoughtful reader could possibly tolerate Johnson’s stunning intellectual dishonesty.” The article:
Well, think again Mark Joseph Stern. In fact read the book again. See that in no way does Paul Johnson dismiss or “smear” evolution or natural selection (you stated this in the subtitle of your article).
At the end of the book, Johnson does extrapolate what he sees as the ideological outcomes (Social Darwinism, humanism, nihilism, eugenics, etc.) of Darwin’s natural selection theory, a theory deliberately configured apart from God-consciousness as it was detached from Mendel’s foundational statistics experiments over time. (By way of information, before Darwin someone else would coin the phrase “survival of the fittest”.)
As can be seen by reading Slate and other smug ideological publications, Social Darwinism is now an applied theory that will abide no reference to mankind as created by God. Instead, Social Darwinism must abide with “the will to power”. Slate readers, I fear, would hate the correlation between God and man as much as they do their own shadows (i.e., Paul Johnson’s revelatory deductions) cast on cave walls.
Our Dilemma:
Do we take to heart and flesh the words of Slate and the Progressives and let Social Darwinism and materialism define our lives? Do we, in the same vein, live like animals and subvert reason while claiming “science made me do it” and continue to make “unnatural selections (e.g., homosexuality, abortion)?
Or, do we return to our Creator?
I commend Paul Johnson’s book to you. Read it and discern for yourself.
I believe in God as a theistic evolutionist.
~~~
Other Christians who think like I do regarding Creation:
Previous posts have exposed the false either/or thinking of Epicurean philosophy and its now universally subverting High-Horse Mal-ware, a mal-ware that bifurcates mankind’s worldview.
At ‘ground level’ there is science, scientism, facts and secularism. In the attic are God, religion, values and meaning. Richard Dawkins and other angry atheists such as the former Christopher Hitchens, both keenly Epicurean, would opine “There’s probably is no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy life. Here is your ground game: avoid pain, seek pleasure and BTW there is evil in the world therefore God must be AWOL.”
The “Great Divorce” bus? vide C.S. Lewis
The Epicurus “High-Horse” Mal-ware landed on the shores of the New World ready to create a new saeculum- a new age. Thomas Jefferson declared himself to be Epicurean. Look at your dollar bill: ANNUIT CŒPTIS NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM=“Initiate the new world order”. The new world order of America was to become the Enlightenment’s gift to the world-Governor John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill” (1630).
Mankind in this New-Age-New-World, already exposed to “High-Horse” mal-ware, was thought by many to be made of random atoms which materially evolved without any help from above. Ergo, mankind would just as ‘freely’ determine its fate via scientism using a co-opted and modified European/Westphalian system of order (17th century) while keeping God at attic’s length. The pilgrims did inject a belief in an Epicurus defined fear-mongering God but their distant “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” Deist God would later only be mentioned at funerals and never mentioned on resumes. (I realize that I am summing up at lot in a short post.)
Now that you have heard about the Epicurus “High-Horse” Mal-ware you will begin to see its effects in every day life. For instance…
Recently Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a potential 2016 POTUS candidate, was asked if he believed in evolution.
“Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a potential U.S. presidential candidate, on Wednesday declined to say whether he believed that humans evolved from other life forms, a theory widely supported by scientists but rejected by many American voters.
“That’s a question a politician shouldn’t be involved in one way or the other,” Walker said during a question-and-answer session at Chatham House, a London think tank…
…When asked by the moderator whether he accepted the theory of evolution, Walker also declined to answer.
“I’m here to talk about trade, not to pontificate,” he said. “I love the evolution of trade in Wisconsin.”
Scientists widely agree that humans have evolved from other life forms over the course of millions of years, as English naturalist Charles Darwin first proposed in 1859.
But the theory of evolution is rejected by many evangelical Christians, who view it as conflicting with the Bible’s story that the universe was created in seven days.
More than four in 10 Americans reject evolutionary theory and believe that God created humans in their present form, according to a Gallup opinion poll conducted last June. Creationism runs strongest among older, more religious and less educated voters, the survey found”
Wow! “less educated voters”!! Talk about pompous “High-Horse” Mal-ware social manipulating scripting!
The intent of this line of questioning reported here and by other high-horse trolls was to expose Walker as intellectually weak: “Are you a “down-to-earth rational being who believes in science and evolution or are you another one of those silly Christians who believes in Creationism created by an AWOL god?”
The interviewer was hoping Walker would click on the “High-Horse” mal-ware message, make a fool of himself with a reply and then get spammed by the media. The question (Obviously I can’t read the interviewer’s mind but the question itself in this context was meant, I believe, to divide ‘rational’ believers in Darwinian evolution and materialism from the silly ‘superficial’ believers in a Creationist God.) The intent also, as I see it, was meant to contrast those who consider themselves really really smart, proud of their belief in scientism, Epicurean in their default cynicism against those who (in the interviewer’s mind) hold ‘silly’ religious “God is not dead” views. And, this question was posed to divide Walker’s base constituency of Christians. There are those who still hold to a young earth literalist Creation and there are those who have moved on with science and accept theistic evolution. These latter Christians accept that the first two chapters of Genesis are poetic in nature and are not to be interpreted as literal. These latter Christians also accept that these two chapters most definitely give us God’s perspective on mankind’s origin and purpose–Humanities 101.
Here’s another similar post ‘taken over’ by “High-Horse” mal-ware:
“Scott Walker Humiliates Himself On The World Stage By Dodging A Question About Evolution”
Walker was asked if he was comfortable with, and believed in evolution. It was a simple question that made the Wisconsin governor look like a fool, “For me, I’m going to punt on that one as well. That’s question a politician shouldn’t be involved in.”
Moderator Justin Webb of BBC Radio4 took Walker to task, “That is a question any British politician right or left wing would laugh and say, “Of course, evolution’s true.”
Gov. Walker replied by digging himself in deeper, “To me, I’m here to talk about trade, not to pontificate about other issues. I love the evolution of trade in Wisconsin. It’s going really well, and I’d like to see it even bigger.”
The implication being here, if I may, that “you are way too stupid to govern you silly little man, Scott Walker, if you don’t agree that science is the court of last resort and far superior to any irrational belief in a god.” “High-Horse” mal-ware defaces truth once again.
The interviewer’s question not only echoes Epicurus but also a Garden of Eden questioner. Remember the Genesis account of a ‘serpent’ speaking to Eve in the Garden? “Did God really say that you could not eat the fruit of that tree?” This could be taken as, “Does God really get involved or care or even know about your daily life? He shows up now and then. And what about that rule “don’t eat the fruit of that tree”? Would a ‘good’ God deprive you of the pleasure of ‘that’ fruit?
Epicurus would later answer (supposedly), “No, don’t deprive yourself. In my opinion even if there was a god he wouldn’t mind if you took your pleasure in the fruit of that tree. And is there a god? Men do evil and no good god would allow it. Let go of your fears. Go on Eve “Let It Go”, eat it. Any more questions?”
Now, if I were Scott Walker in that situation, my response would be, “Yes, I accept theistic evolution-a finely tuned theistic universe, a personal cause of the universe and a theistic objective morality. Science is only one of several tools for understanding the material world we live in and it won’t supply meaning. Science does not prove or disprove whether there is a god but it most assuredly hints at there being an Omnipotent Outsider. And.…(deep breath) I also accept the historical facts of the birth of God Incarnate–Jesus Christ, His “Sermon on the Mount” life among us for thirty years, Christ’s death on a cross, and his bodily resurrection. I accept the historicity of each of these facts. And, (another deep breath) I accept that all of this was done so that God could set up his Kingdom here on earth among men in order that He could make the earth righteous as he is righteous by redeeming and reconciling His eagerly awaiting creation to Himself. There will be no more bifurcation of heaven and earth. Any more questions?”
As I write this the U.S. is one nation under Epicurus, but not for long. The kingdoms and rulers of this world will soon be under submission to the One True God-The Lord Jesus Christ. This King of Kings and Lord of Lords shall reign for ever and ever.
“Worthy is the Lamb…”
Adoration of the lamb Jan van Eyck (circa 1390-1441) Ghent altarpiece
For further theistic evolution information see the Biologos website.
This past week I read an engaging book by scientist Francis S. Collins: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. As someone who works in the engineering field and as a believer in God the book’s discussion of science and faith being compatible piqued my interest.
Before reading this book I did have the innate understanding that science and faith were compatible and that each discipline reinforced the other with their respective insights and revelations but prior to reading this book I hadn’t seen much credible literature discussing this premise. Currently there appears to be plenty of antipathy between the church and science. So as one might imagine I was excited to purchase the book and evaluate a scientist’s take on the connection. I was not disappointed.
Francis S. Collins, as the back cover bio reads, headed the Human Genome Project and is one of the world’s leading scientists. “He works at the cutting edge of the study of DNA, the code of life. Yet he is also a man of unshakable faith in God and Scripture.
Dr. Collins believes that faith in God and faith in science can coexist within a person and be harmonious. In The Language of God he makes his case for God and Science.”
Of special interest to me is the fact that Collins (as I do) accepts theistic evolution. In Chapter Ten he writes:
“This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world. It is also entirely compatible with the great monotheistic religions of the world. The theistic evolution perspective cannot, of course, prove that God is real, as no logical argument can fully achieve that. Belief in God will always require a leap in faith.”
The book lays out for the reader in very accessible terms how Collins who was not raised in a Christian home came to his belief in God as a budding scientist in his twenties. The book goes on to discuss why Collins fully accepts theistic evolution as opposed to literal Creationism and Intelligent Design. Based on his own research Collins says the evidence is overwhelming in favor of natural evolution as God’s creative methodology. I would agree.
He then further encourages the church to endorse scientific research as a resource for understanding God’s creation, therefore offering a better understanding of God. In concert with his plea I believe every church leader should purchase this book and read its message. There is, sadly, too much bad information being preached and taught by the Christian Evangelical church regarding creation. This bad information makes the church look rather foolish. Remember Galileo’s row with the church? Being raised an Evangelical I was taught that the earth was created about 6-8000 years ago and that the seven days described in Genesis Chapter One were literal days: Poof, we just showed up on the scene.
As an adult, though, I became skeptical of the Creationist theology but I clung to it because I had heard of no other plausible evidence to the contrary. Evolution was routinely discounted in the Evangelical church. In fact everything I had heard in church told me that evolution was the atheist’s version of the Christian creation. Evolution was also described as a slippery slope which would carry people away from God toward unbelief. And worse, the church seemed opposed to science and science was something I truly enjoyed being involved with. I would later look into Intelligent Design (ID) and had wondered if ID might be the catch-all for my belief in God’s creative act. But I was to learn that ID was flawed theory that did not take into account the nature of God.
My change in thinking occurred a few years ago when I came across the writings of Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga from the University of Notre Dame. Spending two and a half hours on a train five days a week over the course of several years I had been able to read and research many different science and philosophy topics. And I did this precisely because I wanted to know more about God, the nature of His being and the world around me. This excited me no end. I don’t read romance novels. I find my excitement by romancing the truth.
Through reading Plantinga’s papers, though sometimes written in difficult philosophical terms, the door of my understanding was opened wide and I accepted theistic evolution as a valid creation methodology. I would encourage anyone to read Plantinga’s papers.
The basics of theistic evolution are clearly delineated in Francis Collins’ book and on the Biologos website. Biologos is the name given to theistic evolution by scientist Collins. Here are the Biologos premises/beliefs from that website:
We believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life over billions of years. God continues to providentially sustain the natural world, and the cosmos continues to declare the glory of God.
We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation.
We believe in the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. We believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which we are saved and reconciled to God.
We believe that God continues to be directly involved in human history in acts of salvation, personal transformation, and answers to prayer.
We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means though which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God.
We believe that God also reveals himself in and through the natural world he created, which displays his glory, eternal power, and divine nature. Properly interpreted, scripture and nature are complementary and faithful witnesses to their common Author.
We believe that the methods of science are an important and reliable means to investigate and describe the world God has made. In this, we stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom Christian faith and science are mutually hospitable.
We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution and common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes.
We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.
We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church.
We reject ideologies such as Deism that claim the universe is self-sustaining, that God is no longer active in the natural world, or that God is not active in human history.
We reject ideologies such as Darwinism and Evolutionism that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.
We reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality.
As a follower of Christ and as someone who seeks to bring people to faith in Him I see it as imperative that Evangelical church leaders (John Paul II accepted theistic evolution) come to grips with science (natural science, quantum physics, genetics, etc.) and to avail themselves of all empirical data and evidences coming out of science research. As I see it the church and science are completely compatible. Therefore, the church must not seek to restrain the hand of God, an evolved-incarnated hand that was once nailed to a tree, a resurrected hand that now reaches out to all of us.
For more information about theism and theistic evolution:
Out of fear of creating a post too long and drawn out (as it turned out to be) and one that no one may read I will try and summarize as best I can my take on the video posted below. Please view the video first. (You will need several cups of coffee. Hold the scotch.)
*****
As you will see and hear in the video, Christopher Hitchens’ (Hitch) arguments for atheism (or against theism), after many dead-end asides, were centered on his aversion to having anyone telling anyone what to do. His followers readily know that over the years Hitch has repeatedly taken umbrage on paper or in one-upmanship debates against totalitarianism and against any authoritarian person or religion having a say in his life or in the lives of others. For the record, William Lane Craig (marker 13:59) noted that Hitch despised and hated religion.
Hitch was certainly OK, though, with authoritarian imposition upon others if he felt the cause justified removing other authoritarian figures from the lives of those he thought were oppressed. He, to the horror of the liberal elitists, aligned himself philosophically with G.W. Bush regarding the Iraq war and the war on terror against radical Islamists.
In the February 2012 issue of Vanity Fair, Salman Rushdie penned In Memoriam, Christopher Hitchens: 1949-2011. Rushdie wrote about Hitch’s return to the left:
“Paradoxically, it was God who saved Christopher Hitchens from the right. Nobody who detested God as viscerally, intelligently, originally, and comically as C. Hitchens could stay in the pocket of god-bothered American conservatism for long. When he bared his fangs and went for God’s jugular, just as he had previously fanged Henry Kissinger, Mother Teresa, and Bill Clinton, the resulting book, God is not great, carried Hitch away from the American right and back toward his natural, liberal, ungodly constituency.”
As a way of life Hitch sought to stand juxtaposed to the universal rule of law (his own conscience) in an antinomian position while at the same time declaring moral diatribes against religious and political authorities he considered too over arching in their imposition. He also liked to keep his conscience well inebriated and his roving moralist eye ever looking elsewhere ~ looking outside and not within ~ denial and pretense being typical liberal traits.
With atheistic cowardice and hubris, Hitch attacked Mother Teresa, a little old lady. He apparently wanted to feed his prurient desire to neutralize any authority figure (overt or implied) by trying to bring her down several notches in people’s eyes. Why? He claimed she was pushing her authoritarian teachings onto the helpless. He accused her of hypocrisy in her dealings (an easy, self-serving claim for an atheist to make against any Christian). He may have felt threatened by her devotion to an unseen God and her ability to make things happen for others and doing so as a little old lady.
Why would a grown man verbally attack a helpless woman who indeed went about helping others who themselves were under the totalitarianism of poverty and squalor? Maybe Hitch thought she wasn’t helpless. Maybe it was a direct attack against God. It certainly was an act of unmatched intelligential cowardice. To be sure Mother Teresa fought the unseen authorities of this world (the “powers of darkness”) by physically helping the outcast, the hungry and the hurting with an agape-powered love and not verbal hubris.
Hitch, on the other hand, fought the very public “seen” authorities of this world by aligning rhetorically with causes which he felt were important for him. He should have noted that he and Mother Teresa were fighting the same issue ~ human suffering at the hands of others (whether a dictator or a false religion) -from two different sides. Yet, he chose to denigrate Mother Teresa. I believe he did this because he felt threatened by her belief in the unseen God.
Hitch postures that Christians, especially Christian missionaries like Mother Teresa, are hypocrites who say things they know to be true and good but live disconnected lives apart from such truth – their deeds not matching match their words. This argument (?) against God was replayed in his use the La Rochefoucauld quote “hypocrisy is a tribute vice pays to virtue.” Yet, this hypocrisy argument folds in on itself if one were to hold any moral standard at all. Perhaps Hitch, a polymath, saw moral laws as “many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore.” (The Raven, Edgar Allen Poe)
Clearly Hitch’s excessive lifestyle (his immoderate drinking, smoking, etc. have been noted elsewhere) made his salacious attacks against God all the more the more forthcoming and lubricious. His lifestyle had also proved his belief in nihilism – life is nothing if not suffering. So he apparently used a “get it while you can” justification to medicate the blows between verbal jousting contests.
His liquid lifestyle also spoke to the fact of Hitch’s drive for “freedom” from any limitation imposed on his person including by his own person – his physiology. He chose against himself again and again. He did this while throwing the world a bone now and then, choosing willy-nilly causes to deflect away any personal soul-searching which might lead to accountability to any higher authority. (see marker 25: 5, If god does not exist then objective moral standards don’t exist – a self-satisfying argument.)
Hitch detested dictatorships of all kinds and he did so while as a potentate of his own world. He would not bend the knee to anyone or to anything. He would fight, as Salmon Rushdie recalled in the same Vanity Fair article remembering his friend, for anyone who was made to do so. Hitch’s rebellion was against dictatorial authority of any kind and not just in the political and religious realm. And he certainly rebelled against authority stated as codified truth – the Bible and the recorded history of the resurrection of Jesus. His moral relativism, stated above, is characteristic of most atheists (and the “ungodly constituency”) since they affirm that no moral standard exists outside one’s self.
In the video Hitch asks the universal question posed to theism: why would a God who was all powerful and good allow suffering? My answer: suffering comes out of created man’s free-will choices in a fallen world. God has allowed it for a time but not forever. Justice will be meted out and suffering will end.
He continues his disbelief: “Why would God spend eons of time in creating a world that he could set up in a blink of an eye?” He went on to say that Christians are now co-opting evolution theory in accordance with the Creation argument, evolution being a position long held by atheists. He “christens” this “tactic” or “style” of argument as “retrospective evidentialism” or as a “second thought.” (marker 37:40)
As a Christian theist I see no conflict whatsoever with science and creation. I believe in theistic evolution-a finely tuned theistic universe, a personal cause of the universe and a theistic objective morality. As scientific evidence becomes available it should be used and not discarded. Beyond scientific proofs, my own belief in God is vindicated every day because I, a rational human being, know that God exists. I continue to pursue Him actively and I submit to His authority. Hitch, on the other hand, fled from any such authority outside of himself and employed his own existentialist belief system where he felt safe from intrusion.
Also in the video, Hitch uses the Creationist argument of a literal seven days to say that we as Christians are basically lunatics to believe such things. Again, I see no conflict with a Creationist’s position of a literal seven days and the theory of relativity which could make thousands of millennia appear as seven literal days.
Hitch takes another jab at Christian theism by invoking his own god-like view point when questioning why God would do what Christian theists believe He did. He balks (and I’ll paraphrase): “…the eons of time that God has created-evolved ~ that all of this fine tuning, mass extinction and randomness is the will of a Creator God (marker 40:21) and that all of this happened so that one very imperfect race of evolved primates might become Christian ~ all of this was “with us in view” is a curious kind of solipsism, a curious kind of self-centeredness.” Hitch jests that he thought Christians were modest and humble, not self-centered with certain arrogance to the assumption that this “was all about us.” And, “The tremendous wastefulness of it, the tremendous cruelty of it, the tremendous caprice of it, the tremendous tinkering and incompetence of it, never mind at lease we’re here and we can be people of faith.” This projection from one who, with a free will, spoke from a self-centered and solipsistic core!
The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Creator, was always meant to bypass the wise of this earth: “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the Scriptures say, “He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness.”” (Apostle Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church). A priori rebellion coded as cleverness is found in the Mitochondrial DNA of man.
Apart from free-wheeling self-directed solipsism, there is a bounty of sound arguments for theism and William Lane Craig (WLC) highlights them artfully: “No good argument that atheism is true, there are good arguments that theism is true ~ not via social questions or ethics (marker 16:00).
WLC philosophical arguments in quick notation:
Cosmological argument: things exist, not nothing; the universe began to exist not infinite, not eternal ~ Big Bang Beginning, ex-nihilo, a cause by an UnCause beyond space and time; David Hillburg ~ The infinite; there must be a cause of creation. This Being must be uncaused, timeless, space unfathomable & personal and not abstract thought or object; The universe has begun to exist and is not infinite, not eternal (astrophysics concur); Past event are real, there must be Personal creator of the universe, transcendent intelligent mind
Teological argument: (marker 20:00) finely tuned universe ~ mathematically constants (e.g., gravity) not determined by the laws of nature & the arbitrary conditions (entropy, balance between matter and antimatter); any change in these would be the end of life itself (the atomic weak force being altered)
Chance? Odds are incomprehensibly great, life prohibiting universes are more probable
It follows logically by Design ~ intelligent argument, intelligent designer
Moral argument (marker 25: 15): if god does not exist then objective moral standards don’t exist; if God exists then valid and binding; the morality that has emerged proves that god exists ~ via moral experience; we understand that there are things that are really wrong.
Historical fact (marker 27:40): The resurrection of Jesus a historical fact not just a belief; tomb discovered empty eyewitnesses; individuals and groups saw Jesus, appearances to believers and unbelievers; the original disciples believed in the resurrection and Jewish religion believed otherwise about when resurrection occurs; Christian die for the truth of the resurrection (marker 30:26)
Experiential knowledge: The experience of God or claim to know that God exists – properly basic beliefs part of a system of beliefs including the belief of an external world; Context of physical objects; grounded in our experience of God; God immediate reality
Hitch responds (marker 33:16): arguments the same across religions ~ belief in God but differences; presuppositionalists (by faith) and the evidentialists a distinction without a difference.
As you will note Hitch’s arguments are all basically dismissive of Christian belief and are not evidentiary in favor of atheism; note his “rather sweet” dismissal of those who believe ~ that those of faith should have evidence. (Hitch once again conveniently dismisses the facts of the resurrection and the improbability of causation by chance.)
Hitch: “We argue that is no plausible or convincing reason, certainly no evidential one to believe that there is such an entity…all observable phenomena is explicable (marker 42:00); I don’t believe that following the appropriate rituals…
“Even if this deity did exit it doesn’t prove that he cared about us…cared who we had sex with …care whether we lived or died… (marker 42:32)
“Miracles suspend the natural order ~ Christians want it both ways (“promiscuous”) (marker 44:00); The natural order – “It is miraculous without a doubt”
“I have to say that I appear as a skeptic, I doubt these things.” (marker 46:16)
“The theist says it must be true…”Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”;
“Too early in the study of biology…to make these claims.”
Perhaps Hitch, the verbal grappler, was as a sound and fury professional wrestler who was successfully agile at avoiding a real match-up with Truth. But now, the fight has ended, the match is over. All that’s left in the empty corner is a book ~ God is Not Great. His last words?
“We have entered, as I see it, a spiritual limbo. Our educational institutions are no longer the bearers of high culture, and public life has been deliberately moronised. But here and there, sheltered from the noise and glare of the media, the old spiritual forces are at work” Roger Scruton
*****
“When a common culture declines, the ethical life can be sustained and renewed only by a work of the imagination.”-Roger Scruton
*****
“Jesus prayed, “This is eternal life, that they may know You . . .” (John 17:3). The real meaning of eternal life is a life that can face anything it has to face without wavering. If we will take this view, life will become one great romance— a glorious opportunity of seeing wonderful things all the time. God is disciplining us to get us into this central place of power.” Oswald Chambers
*****
“No power on earth or in hell can conquer the Spirit of God in a human spirit, it is an inner unconquerableness.” Oswald Chambers
*****
To those who have had no agony Jesus says, “I have nothing for you; stand on your own feet, square your own shoulders. I have come for the man who knows he has a bigger handful than he can cope with, who knows there are forces he cannot touch; I will do everything for him if he will let Me. Only let a man grant he needs it, and I will do it for him.” The Shadow of an Agony,Oswald Chambers
*****
“If we wish to erect new structures, we must have a definite knowledge of the old foundations.” John Calvin Coolidge
*****
Atheism is a post-Christian phenomenon.
*****
If social justice looks like your hand in someone else’s pocket then you are stealing.
*****
“In Sweden, giving to charity, absurdly, came to be considered a lack of solidarity, since it undermined the need for the welfare state.” – Roland Martinsson
*****
“…to love democracy well, it is necessary to love it moderately.” Alexis de Tocqueville
*****
Capitalism seeks to help others through a servce or product it provides. Free Market Capitalism is the most moral and fair economic system available to man. Capitalism augments personal growth, responsibility and ownership. Charity flourishes under capitalism. Charity dies under subjective “fair share” government confiscatory policies. Socialism redistributes ambivalence and greed.
*****
“We are to regard existence as a raid or great adventure; it is to be judged, therefore, not by what calamities it encounters, but by what flag it follows and what high town it assaults. The most dangerous thing in the world is to be alive; one is always in danger of one’s life. But anyone who shrinks from that is a traitor to the great scheme and experiment of being.” G.K. Chesterton
*****
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent.
It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein
*****
“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you odd.” Flannery O’Connor
*****
“There is but one good; that is God. Everything else is good when it looks to Him and bad when it turns from Him.” C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
*****
“Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him” (Job 13:15).
*****
God’s grace is not about the allowance for sin. God’s grace is about the conversation God allows regarding sin.
*****
From the book of Proverbs: We are not to favor the rich or the poor. We are to pursue justice.
*****
“Always keep in contact with those books and those people that enlarge your horizon and make it possible for you to stretch yourself mentally.” Oswald Chambers
*****
One goldfish says to another, “If there is no God who keeps changing the water?”
*****
“The truth is always there in the morning.”
From Cat On A Hot Tin Roof script – playwright Tennessee Williams
*****
God blesses those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be satisfied.
*****
“America’s greatness has been the greatness of a free people who shared certain moral commitments. Freedom without moral commitment is aimless and promptly self-destructive.” John W. Gardner
**
“Men of integrity, by their very existence, rekindle the belief that as a people we can live above the level of moral squalor. We need that belief; a cynical community is a corrupt community.” John W. Gardner
*****
“In the world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called Despair, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.” Dorothy L. Sayers
*****
“Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere.”
G. K. Chesterton
*****
“The battle line between good and evil runs through the heart of every man.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn
*****
This is what the LORD says:
“Stand at the crossroads and look;
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls.
But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’
-The prophet Jeremiah, 6:16
*****
“…our common task is not so much discovering a truth hiding among contrary viewpoints as it is coming to possess a selfhood that no longer evades and eludes the truth with which it is importunately confronted.” James McClendon, Ethics: Systematic Theology, Vol. 1
*****
Cindy Wity 
Authority Issues
January 1, 2023 Leave a comment
Looking back, how many of you, during the COVID planned-demic, wore a mask, or worse, received the experimental DNA-altering jab because you feared losing access to someplace or someone, or losing your job? Authoritarians, and their media handmaids, made a point of telling you to fall in line and fear repercussions. Authoritarians control people with narratives that are to be taken as gospel.
If you and I did not practice the gospel of safetyism – a means to scare everyone into conformity under authoritarian rule – then you and I were portrayed as heartless and extremists.
Let us not forget. The abusive, manipulative and corrosive nature of authoritarianism has been evidenced the past two years. Our lives, families, and communities have incurred massive blows from the hammer of unconstrained authority. Liberty – freedom of thought, word and association – be damned!
It has been and continues to be the authoritarians who see themselves as the most intellectually and morally advanced people. They have no issue telling others what to do and making them do so with jackboot mandates. They speak in terms of power to truth.
One ubiquitous televised authority told you that he was “science” – period! Based on this pronouncement, you and I were to immediately end critical thinking and questioning about COVID “science”. We were to submit to the apotheosis of “the science”.
Several authorities used manipulative ways to bring about conformity to their will: This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated!
Now, one authority figure is saying “I think we all agree the most important thing going on in the world right now is the war in Ukraine”. Really?! Ukraine’s border is more important than the massive invasion happening at our own southern border? What this authority figure is really saying is that the military-industrial complex must be served first before the concerns of Americans.
The last two years have also shown us that authoritarians demand that the bio-industrial complex be served at the expense of freedom and human life.
You see, for the military-industrial complex to financially survive it must produce and sell weaponry . . . and war. For the bio-medical complex to financially survive it must mass produce new serums and pandemics to sell.
Repurposed drugs like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are not money makers. Of course, the politicians and media who support the military complex and/or the bio-medical complex and not the repurposed drugs are rewarded.
There is no question in my mind that very significant powerbrokers around the world have either planned to take advantage of the next pandemic or created the pandemic. – Dr. Michael Yeadon, ex-Pfizer VP
Global authoritarians are now telling us to believe in climate change and to be prepared to pay a price to fix it. Yet, scientists say there is no climate emergency.
Those who have read my blog since 2020 know that I haven’t accept COVID authority. I did not get the jab and I will not wear a mask. I have questioned everything that comes from the CDC and on TV. I have witnessed true science being denied so that authoritarians can have their way.
I have linked to hundreds of commentaries that question the validity of COVID “science” via each post’s “Informed Dissent”. I question what is posited as “the science” and gospel truth. I question authority and take on challenges.
What follows is a common authority challenge presented to Christians from the pulpit and elsewhere, as you will see:
The conversation that follows started with a recent social media post that included a video.
The post: What’s your authority – God’s Word or man’s word? The age of the earth issue is not a science VS faith or an interpretation issue, it’s actually an authority issue. And that issue affects the Gospel. Find out how in this episode of Creation Basics.
The video: No Verses Support This, Yet Christians Believe It…
Does the Bible support evolution or billions of years? Whatever your final authority is will determine how you answer this question.
The video’s premise: “adding billions of years into the Bible destroys the concept of Biblical authority”.
Underlying premises: science is secular thinking; empirical science doesn’t apply to creation origin; “If the Bible isn’t true to the facts of the real world, about the age of the earth, then there is really no reason to trust it . . . “; (and Bible skeptics and atheists might get the upper hand).
Per the video’s premise, I’m a Biblical authority denier for “believing the secular geologic time scale”. To this and to the brazen and distorted underlying premises of Biblical authority and the gospel as compromised by science, I had to write a reply.
My comment to the post:
Wow! This video is messed up. This way of thinking is messed. up. Authority issue? Pitting manmade “Biblical authority” against manmade science authority? What foolishness. The physical world existed long before God gave the cosmos function and order. Genesis tells us that God set up the existing cosmos to be his temple within 7 literal days. Genesis 1 -11 should be understood as being written to ancient Near East people. The Genesis account made sense, in temple terms, to these readers. They understood Genesis as describing functional origins rather than accounts of material origins.
Genesis begins with the functional origins of an existing universe that science confirms came into existence billions of years before.
Genesis is theological history and science the physical history. I see no conflict.
*****
Marq, a proponent of Answers In Genesis message, replied to my comments:
If the Bible is fantasy than how did it know that there were springs in the oceans, Genesis 7&8?
BTW, God created the earth the seas and all that is in them in six twenty-four-hour days. Although it could be six twenty-hour days.
BTW, if you’d like to refute the Bible try proving abiogenesis. Omne vivum ex vivo. If you can give us the formula to prove abiogenesis, maybe we could then entertain the idea of evolution being plausible.
You see no conflict? Jesus said it was real history. There is your conflict. I can’t trust in someone who is either a liar or is delusional. Maybe you don’t have that problem, but I do.
*****
My reply to Marq:
I didn’t say the Bible is fantasy. The OT was written for us but it wasn’t written to us. It was written to ancient Israel who understood Genesis in temple creation terms- functional terms – and not in physical material creation terms. You are forcing Scripture – taking it out of context – to have it say what you want it to say.
I grew up with the same reductionist thinking. I went to Moody Bible Institute. I was taught that Genesis was literal – but Gen. 1-11 is not literal. God used true mythology to give ancient Israel an explanation of origins and operations.
BTW: God gave us two Scriptures – the Bible and science. We can learn from both scripture and science while not forcing the other to have it mean something that is not true.
The study of scripture and science must include history, ancient history. We must look at all of the evidence God laid out. The people in the ancient world understood things differently than we do. Genesis was written to them so we must read Genesis in their context of language, culture and meaning. which included mythology to explain things.
Study the ancient history, the language and culture. God didn’t give us a Sunday School color-in-the-lines paper to take home. He gave us a world to explore.
*****
Marq replied:
I know what you meant, as I have debated theistic evolutionists. I’m saying we have proof of the literal interpretation.
We know from science that springs actually exist and it was written in Genesis 7&8, you know that part you said is mythology. It wasn’t until 1971 that science proved it and it was only postulated by science in the 1960’s.
So, your mythology takes [sic] crumbles into reality. Also, the migration of people in Genesis eleven is also proven by archeology and now it is shown by the Y-chromosome DNA again sowing [sic] it’s not mythology.
It has been proven repeatedly that life only begets life, omne vivum ex vivo, just as Genesis said. Remember paganism has always believed the universe created itself.
Finally, as I said Jesus would be a liar because he taught that Genesis was true history as did the apostle Paul to Areopagus and not an allegory.
As Jesus said, “John 3:12 If when I tell you earthly things, ye believe not, how should ye believe, If I shall tell you of heavenly things?”
Do you believe Jesus raised Himself from the dead? Do you believe He walked on water? Do you believe He raised Lazarus from the dead? If you do, what scientific proof do you have of those events?
*****
My reply to Marq:
You have provided no proof of a literal interpretation. You provided inuendo, circular reasoning and crumbling logic.
You say that science backs up some things in Scripture and therefore proves Genesis 1-11 to be literal and not myth. Based on that you tell me that since science cannot prove other things in scripture therefore scripture trumps science and myth. Let’s talk mythology.
Modern man views mythology as being false. C.S. Lewis, for one, thought otherwise. God, the great storyteller, revealed Himself through different mythologies throughout history. The core ideas behind the myths were “literally” fulfilled in the first century via Jesus of Nazareth’s incarnation, death, and resurrection.
Myths as false?
Jesus spoke to the multitudes in myth-like parables. These tales were not literal historic events. These were allegorical, metaphorical, and symbolic stories that were spoken in contemporary terms. The parables conveyed truth to the listener.
God gave us science so we could explore and understand the physical world that he created. Science is not a discipline that explains things metaphysically just as theology is not a discipline that explains creation in physical terms. Science is NOT in conflict with scripture – except when secularists and fundamentalists make it so. God gave us both science AND scripture to reveal Himself to us. The material world is incredibly important to God – the word became flesh.
Genesis 1-11 is the true myth written to ancient Israel living within a pagan culture. It wasn’t written specifically to a Sunday school class in the ‘50s that had been taught to hate Darwin and evolutionary creation.
Ancient cultures understood all that is not in science-based terms but in metaphysical-based terms. The saw their world as controlled by gods. They had temples to these gods. The temples were thought of as the cosmos. In their way of thinking, the creation of a temple is the creation of the cosmos.
The apostle Paul addressed the god/temple way of thinking during his speech to the Athenians at the Areopagus. He tells them about the “Unknown God” who created the world. He goes on to say that this “Unknown God” does not live in a temple made by human hands. God created a temple out of the cosmos so that people could seek him out and know him.
Genesis 1 is an account of God inaugurating order (out of the existing chaos) and functionality for his cosmic temple. Genesis 1& 2 is not an account of material origins and material preparations for his temple. Genesis 1 & 2 should be understood as a temple-based explanation of creation.
Over 6–24-hour days God ordered the existing chaos (after the Big Bang) and gave it functions. Heaven and earth, sea and dry land, light and dark, night and day, seedtime and harvest, seasons . . . On the seventh day God “rested” in his cosmic temple and oversaw his creation.
The English word “created” used for Genesis 1:1 translation does not help our understanding. The Hebrew word (bara), in its ancient context, does not imply God creating the universe ex nihilo and it does not imply a function-giving interpretation. Within its context in scripture (about 50x) it does seem that ancient Israel viewed things in functional terms rather than material terms.
*****
Marq’s response:
Nice try! But the Y-chromosome and as I said the springs in the seas in ch. 7,8, and 11 shows it is not an allegory.
Just as omne vivum ex vivo destroys any concept of evolution. There is zero evidence of evolution or your logic. Evolution uses circular reasoning which creationists exposed, because evos use fossils to date the rocks and rocks to date the fossils based on their belief of the rock strata presupposition.
Even SCOTUS when evolutionists brought suit to keep creationism out of school could not confirm evolution so SCOTUS said creationism could not be taught because of separation of church and state.
When our own school board in Columbus, Ohio was allowing creationism to be taught alongside evolution in 1976 evolutionists showed up arguing against it saying separation of church and state. Again, they did not present facts because there are none. I was present at the meeting and as always creationists brought facts.
Evolutonists are scared of facts as there are none that a reasonable person would consider. As Richard Dawkins found out when he debated A. E. Wilder-Smith at Oxford University. Wilder-Smith and another creationist of whom I can’t recall his name was able to persuade quite a few people at this bastion of evolutionary dogma.
After it was over Dawkins refused to openly debate and warned other evolutionists not to debate openly.
Instead of engaging me on evidence you too resort to innuendos. As I said if God was just using parables than how did springs (fountains) end up being real? How did Genesis 11 and the migration of Shem, Ham, and Japheth turn out to be true? or omne vivum ex vivo?
You, and your evo friends, are the ones hiding behind mythology.
Let’s settle this argument. Give me the mathematical formula that proves evolution. One that can be demonstrated time and time again.
Stop hiding behind mythology and it takes millions of years to hide behind the fact that you have no answers. Evolution is only in fairy tale books fit for little children.
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, in the same day WERE ALL THE FOUNTAINS OF THE GREAT DEEP WERE BROKEN UP, and the windows of heaven were opened,
Job 38:16 “Have you entered into the springs of the sea, or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Matthew 24:37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
May God open your eyes.
*****
My reply:
Your words: “the Y-chromosome and as I said the springs in the seas in ch. 7,8, and 11 shows it is not an allegory.” How?!? That literal things existed that science later discovered and therefore Genesis 1-11 could not be a myth explaining existence in temple-making terms to ancient people? So, according to you, everything in Genesis 1-11 must be considered literal because things existed? Your logic makes no sense.
Here’s another example of the same illogic:
“As I said if God was just using parables than how did springs (fountains) end up being real?”
By the same logic, learning some 2000 years after Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan that there were actual Samaritans and Levites in Jesus’ time would mean that what Jesus said in parable format should be discounted as false and not literal authoritative. NB: their literal existence didn’t refute the use of parable by Jesus to speak (the unseen) kingdom truths.
Does everything have to be literal to be proven true? If so, that is a sad commentary on modern man. If so, that supposition also shows that left brain literal thinking has taken over.
Back on track, we are talking about whether Genesis 1-11 is a myth explaining to Israel the setup of a cosmic temple or Genesis as a literal science explanation of creation using 6-7 24 hr. days. Right?
We are talking about whether the cosmos is billions of years old (a science calculated estimate) old or 6-8k years old (a young earth creationist calculated estimate). Right?
The video would have us believe that if we do not accept the authority of scripture – a 6-24 hr. day material creation postulated by Answers in Genesis – then we are misled and are denying scriptural authority. What utter nonsense and pretentiousness! What a con job!
I don’t believe in spontaneous generation. I don’t know any biologists who do. I don’t know anyone who does. Evolution is a scientific theory that doesn’t contradict the Bible. (Note: social Darwinism is not something, as a Christian, I adhere to.) Like with the study of ancient cultures, it is more than OK to look at historical evidence: rock strata, fossil records, and genetics. It is Ok to understand the biogeography of nature. It is OK to study the natural order. It testifies of God.
“The Heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1)
And so it is that understanding of the stars has led scientists to refine the ages of the stars in globular clusters, and now estimate them to be about 13 billion years old. This means that the stars in the globular clusters must have formed within the first several hundred million years of the universe’s existence!
No mythology: The approximate age of the universe can be derived using Hubble’s law: v = H0d where (d) is the distance between two galaxies, (v) their apparent separation velocity, (H0) the expanding universe (Hubble’s) constant. The velocity of the galaxy, aka, redshift, is directly proportional to its distance.
Q.E.D.
*****
Marq’s next response:
Flavius Josephus, Jesus, and all of the Apostles all believed Genesis 1-11 was true chronological history reserved for mankind and not mythological or allegorical account not to be taken as literal.
So, it’s the evolutionists job to prove what is obvious to any casual observer.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
From Flavius Josephus Antiquities of the Jews Book 1, Chapter 3:9. Now when Noah had lived three hundred and fifty years after the Flood, and that all that time happily, he died, having lived the number of nine hundred and fifty years. But let no one, upon comparing the lives of the ancients with our lives, and with the few years which we now live, think that what we have said of them is false; or make the shortness of our lives at present an argument, that neither did they attain to so long a duration of life, for those ancients were beloved of God, and [lately] made by God himself; and because their food was then fitter for the prolongation of life, might well live so great a number of years: and besides, God afforded them a longer time of life on account of their virtue, and the good use they made of it in astronomical and geometrical discoveries, which would not have afforded the time of foretelling [the periods of the stars] unless they had lived six hundred years; for the great year is completed in that interval. Now I have for witnesses to what I have said, all those that have written Antiquities, both among the Greeks and barbarians; for even Manetho, who wrote the Egyptian History, and Berosus, who collected the Chaldean Monuments, and Mochus, and Hestieus, and, besides these, Hieronymus the Egyptian, and those who composed the Phoenician History, agree to what I here say: Hesiod also, and Hecatseus, Hellanicus, and Acusilaus; and, besides these, Ephorus and Nicolaus relate that the ancients lived a thousand years. But as to these matters, let every one look upon them as he thinks fit.
II Peter 3:1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For they deliberately overlook this FACT, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
******
My reply:
“What is obvious to any casual observer” is that you are dropping a lot of names and scripture bombs to conceal your lack of a coherent argument. None of your references support a literal 6-24 hr day creation. They just refer to creation as creation.
Of course, Jesus believed in creation. NT writers told us that he is the creator (Jn. 1, Col. 1). But nothing in the NT tells us that Jesus spoke of or believed in literal 6-24 hr. days of creation.
Colossians 1: 15 “He is the image of God, the invisible one, The firstborn of creation”.
How should we understand the “firstborn of creation” words from this early Christian hymn? In literal terms? By the authority of scripture, we can fully acknowledge the metaphor that Jesus is the “firstborn of creation.”
A metaphor helps us understand a truth we cannot fully grasp. This, it seems to me, is how Genesis 1-11 was written – in true myth to an ancient people.
Remember the words of Jesus: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Those around him took it literally. It wasn’t until the resurrection that the disciples understood what he meant.
Remember Jesus saying “If you’ve got ears, then listen!” after he told them parables. The multitudes loved the literal feedings, the literal healings, and the literal exorcisms. They came to him for the literal. But the things of the kingdom of God, expressed in parables, were not literal enough for most of them.
Jesus telling Nicodemus that he must be born again confused him.
There are many, many metaphors, allegories and true myths in scripture. Is Song of Solomon literal? Should I cut off my hand if it makes me sin? Genesis 1-11 as true myth should not upset anyone’s theology.
One last word on Genesis 1-2.
In the last two chapters of the Revelation of John we find that God’s cosmic temple-based explanation of creation, written as true myth to ancient Israel in Genesis 1-2, is fully realized.
“I heard a loud voice from the throne, and this is what it said: “Look! God has come to dwell with humans! He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them and will be their God.” Rev. 21: 3
The peace of the Lord be with you.
*****
Marq’s next response:
I forgot to mention that I went to a Messianic Synagogue to learn Hebrew. They believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis and Yeshua as God incarnate.
They were also taught as children the literal interpretation of Genesis as Jews. In fact, most orthodox Jews believe in the literal translation of Genesis. Again, this counters your argument that they did not believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11.
*****
My friend, I cannot vouch for what others think or for the generation of their beliefs.
As I understand it, you believe the verb bara’ translated as “create” infers a material creation of the universe that lasted 6 -24 hr days. The seventh day is tacked on as a non-workday, I guess.
We would both agree that Hebrew lexicons translate the verb bara’ as “create”. That is the closest English word. The definition given for bara’ is to create, shape and form.
Bara’ (Gen. 1:1) can be God choosing to give order and purpose to the material creation out of the existing chaos. Bara’ can describe a formative process and a function-giving process.
Examples of bara’ would be an artist who “creates” a painting or an architect who “creates” a temple. The materials are there and the scope/vision is there. Creation is the application of materials and vision to produce the desired outcome.
That creation understanding is my understanding of the literal 7 days of Genesis. God gave functions and roles to the existing creation to support mankind. Man was created to be the caretaker-priest of his temple creation. We find out later that Adam, an archetype of caretaker-priest mankind, needed someone to help with the caretaking of the temple. Hence Eve, derived from one-half of Adam and another such archetype.
Reading the 7 days of Genesis in functional terms and not in material creation terms, makes sense. God is inaugurating his cosmic temple over the 6 24 hr days. On the seventh God “rests’ or sits and rules in his cosmic temple. Ancient people would understand the temple building, temple inauguration, and priests serving temple gods.
Note: the temple theme begins in Genesis 1 and goes through scripture to the last chapters of John’s Revelation. Temple creation, tent-tabernacle, Solomon’s temple, the second temple, new creations as the temple of God, and finally God dwelling with man and . . .
“I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God the Almighty is it temple, together with the Lamb.” Rev. 21: 22
Finally, my initial comment was directed to the video posted. I rejected its premise:
The age of the earth issue is not a science VS faith or an interpretation issue, it’s actually an authority issue. And that issue affects the Gospel
The Catholic church also had “authority” issues. Those issues led to the Inquisition to combat “heresy”. The Inquisition generated dread – people feared being rejected by the church and loss of salvation. There were horrific consequences if they did not profess whatever they were told to profess. They accepted, out of fear of losing their salvation, whatever they were told to accept. The video reminded me of the Inquisition and how church authorities felt threatened by those questioned what their authority dictated.
People of science should never be marginalized and ostracized by the Christian community.
I’m done here. Thank you for the back and forth.
The peace of the Lord be with you.
*****
Marq’s final words:
Ultimately, what you are saying is that the universe created God?
The first Law of Thermodynamics says the universe cannot create itself and the 2nd Law says it had to be created.
This is just common logic, otherwise, God is just as material and useless as the pagan gods and Jesus would just be a clown.
It’s funny because the Catholic Church has always believed in evolution and the scientific community which is why they adopted the pagan Aristotle and Ptolemy. It’s the evolutionists who are running the inquisition. They are saying that evolution is a fact that needs no proof.
Again, the only proof you’ve proffered for evolution is that Genesis was meant as an allegory.
Since the Laws of Thermodynamic are mathematical proofs and cannot be refuted, evolutionists try to say we don’t understand so their sycophants fall in line. You do not demand that evos put up or shut up.
You’d think after thousands of years they’ve spent trying to convince people they could put something together that was coherent.
May God open your eyes to the obvious truth.
And . .
Thank you too for conversing!
**********
Marq’s replies reveal that he totally missed what I was saying all along. Or, he just didn’t want to deal with what I was saying except in scripted terms. Marq’s final words are defensive and dismissive. He does not offer new information in support of a literal 6-day 24 hr. creation. Before that, he claimed that others believe that his position is true and therefore that proves it to be true.
And like the unconscionable video message, Marqe pits science against scripture, as if God’s own material creation would betray God’s own word to us.
Legal experts from Jerusalem set up a similar adversarial scenario – “it’s not the way we say it’s supposed to be” vs. the way it is. The Gospel according to Mark chapter 3, vs. 22-30 records Jesus being accused of being possessed by an unclean spirit because he cast out demons. His response: “How can the Accuser cast out the Accuser?”
And how could material creation betray the creator? Even the stones would be shouting out praise to the Living Word if all else is silent!
In my responses I never said or implied that the universe created itself or that God didn’t create the universe. I was stating that scripture, and Genesis in particular, is not scientific revelation. The opening chapters of Genesis are true myth written to an ancient people and their understanding.
Apparently, he thinks that since I am positing Genesis 1 & 2 as true myth – God’s way of explaining creation to an ancient people – that I am saying God didn’t create the world. God did create the universe and, as I tried to convey, perhaps not in the way that Marq insisted it happened. And, of course, the laws of thermodynamic operate in the physical world.
I don’t read Genesis, and scripture as a whole, as scientific revelation. Scripture is a revelation of identity, function and purpose. We find out from scripture who God is and who we are and what we are to be about.
To convey this in contemporary terms, God used the culture, language and understanding of an ancient writer (and every writer of scripture since) to convey what He wanted the people of that time to know. Genesis was written in their ancient terms.
I responded to Marq, not for a debate, but so that I could present another look at Genesis 1-11. Not once did he respond to my temple creation viewpoint. Instead, he tied me in, as if going by a young earth creationist playbook, with evolutionists and the godless cabal who deny the authority of “6-day 24 hr. material creation” and therefore the authority of the Bible. (Here I am being accused of being a scripture denier, not a “COID science denier”.)
The opening of the video presents a red herring argument: “scripture doesn’t mention billions of years” Well, scripture is not a scientific journal of events.
Scripture also doesn’t mention, among many other things, that the earth revolves around the sun. Science figured that out and church authoritarians rallied against such a finding because it didn’t align with their teaching. Huh.
Again, scripture is a revelation of identity and relationships. Genesis 1 & 2 names the functions of the cosmic temple, Adam and Eve are the named archetypes of mankind, genealogies follow, Jesus names the twelve, Saul is renamed Paul, new names are handed out as recorded in the John’s Revelation. Names and relationships.
What the video would have us believe: “If you don’t affirm what I saying about a literal Genesis account as being authoritative then the gospel you believe cannot be authoritative.” This setup is not just childish and unconscionable. It is a demonic point of view.
Because science and scripture present different ways of understanding reality, they will not look like they sync. And that is not a justification to reject either one. To suggest that science should be rejected in order to support “Biblical creation” is also a demonic point of view.
Scripture is authoritative. Interpretation is not. Every directive from an authority should be questioned, whether it be from pastor, priest, Pope, Jesuit, professor, the CDC or politician. Don’t roll over and play dead. Study and become convinced of what you believe. As a trailblazer who will not stand being shamed for referring to scripture and science maps, “carve out a straight path for the word of truth- the gospel” (2 Tim. 2:15).
Recall that Jesus had to constantly inform and upbraid legal experts and Pharisees. Many of these self-styled authoritarians presented themselves as “the most intellectually and morally advanced people” in the community and therefore qualified to communicate authoritatively. But they had settled on interpretations of God’s word that missed the mark. As synagogue authorities they passed on their interpretations to the communities in which they lived.
It is a serious matter to Jesus if the interpretation and teachings of God’s word causes anyone to stumble (see Matt. 18:1-7). And remember: the only one who possesses all truth is Jesus, and he served as a model of meekness.
*****
EXCLUSIVE: Archbishop Vigano Calls for 3-Day Fast for Jan 6 Detainees | Human Events | humanevents.com
MIT Adopts Free Speech Resolution: “We Cannot Prohibit Speech as Offensive or Injurious.” – JONATHAN TURLEY
*****
Informed Dissent:
Equity Investment Executive Ed Dowd: 1.7 Million Americans Placed on Disability – Directly Related to COVID Vaccine (VIDEO) (thegatewaypundit.com)
Warning from Ed Dowd: 7,500 Americans are killed or disabled EACH DAY as vax jabs take heavy toll… USA imploding under “decivilization” assault – NaturalNews.com
VAX DEATHS LABELED SUICIDE BY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES — NOT COVERED (bitchute.com)
9-Year-Old Boy from Ontario Dies Suddenly After Suffering a Blood Clot in his Brain (thegatewaypundit.com)
The most detailed evidence yet of the devastating damage Covid vaccines can do – The Conservative Woman
12ft | Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Linked to Blood Clotting: FDA
Why Does Peter Hotez Think We Are Mass Murderers? (substack.com)
quick updates on covid vaccine fertility issues (substack.com)
Top Australian Doctor Who Advocated for COVID Vaccine Finally Breaks Her Silence – Says Doctors are Censored – Reveals She and Her Wife Both Suffer Serious COVID Shot Injuries (thegatewaypundit.com)
EU announces first ‘direct carbon tax’ on individuals… – CITIZEN FREE PRESS
“The lawsuit, filed in October, 2021 by Liberty Counsel, represents more than 500 current and former health care workers who were unlawfully discriminated against and denied religious exemptions from the COVID shot mandate.”
Final Approval in $10.3 Million Settlement Case for Health Care Workers Granted by Court (thegatewaypundit.com)
People are turning down Remdesivir at hospitals, so the hospitals are still giving Remdesivir to them, but under another name: Veklury
Generic Name: Remdesivir
Brand Name: Veklury
Same deadly fauci drug.
Arizona Border Hospital Hit With $20 Million Bill For Treating Illegal Migrants – ‘It’s Unsustainable’ (thegatewaypundit.com)
SLU Encourages Students to Speak Out Against Proposed Minor Protection Rule for Public Libraries – Young America’s Foundation (yaf.org)
White House Can’t Mandate COVID Jabs for Federal Contractors: Appeals Court | NTD
How Twitter Rigged the Covid Debate (thefp.com)
What Could Go Wrong? Startup Releases Particles into The Atmosphere to Stop “Climate Change” (thegatewaypundit.com)
Do vaccines cause autism? It sure looks like it to me. (substack.com)
The (Covid) Law is an Ass – No Jab, No Job (substack.com)
700% diabetes surge predicted as Covid vaccine is linked to diabetes | Sharyl Attkisson
Confidential Pfizer and Government Documents confirm ADE, VAED, and AIDS due to COVID-19 Vaccination have led to Millions “Dying Suddenly” & still counting – The Expose (expose-news.com)
No hock Sherlock!
The left hates humans:
Democrat Gov. Hochul Legalizes Composting Human Remains in New York (thegatewaypundit.com)
Hmmmmm:
Spending Bill Funnels Over $300 Million Related To A Future Flu Pandemic, Including For ‘Surveillance Tools’ (nationalfile.com)
Omnibus Pork Thread: Thread by @RepDanBishop on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App
Perspective:
The gift that keeps on giving:
Omnibus Shows Congress’s Priorities: Authoritarianism & War | ZeroHedge
18 Republicans Voted to Pass the McConnell-Schumer Omnibus (dailysignal.com)
ANOTHER NASTY SURPRISE: GOP Sellouts Gave Biden Regime $11 MILLION to Target Gun Owners in Repulsive Omnibus Bill (thegatewaypundit.com)
Annus horribilis:
The year the West erased women – UnHerd
Where are the adults?
Stanford University Walks Back Plan to Eliminate ‘Racist’ and ‘Harmful’ Words Like ‘American,’ ‘Grandfather’ After Backlash (thegatewaypundit.com)
Secretary Pete Buttigieg AWOL as Massive Southwest Airlines Cancellations Create Holiday Travel Hell Across Nation (thegatewaypundit.com)
‘Kidults’ Now Responsible For a Quarter of All US Toy Sales – Summit News
Rate this:
Filed under 2023 current events, Christianity, cosmology, Creationism, Political Commentary, Politics, social commentary Tagged with Authoritarianism, Bible, Christianity, COVID, creation, Genesis, Scripture, Vax, young earth creationsism