The Biblical Apologist

What Is Revelation?

2011-04-25T09:53:00.005-05:00

According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Greek#602), the word “revelation” comes from apŏkalupsis, meaning “disclosure.” apŏkalupsis has been translated variously in the King James Version of the Bible as “appearing, coming, lighten, manifestation, be revealed,” as well as “revelation.” (ibid.)

From this, we can see that the Greek word apŏkalupsis has been transliterated rather than translated into the word “apocalypse,” which is one of the names the Book of Revelation commonly goes by: The Apocalypse. But it could also be known as The Disclosure, The Appearing, The Coming, The Enlightening, The Manifestation or The Revealing.

In any event, the apŏkalupsis is a revealing of some pretty nasty events that are to occur during the last days, which are now upon us. It also reveals some other important items and events as well.

The important thing to remember about revelation is that it is an eternal principle. It has existed from the days of Adam and Eve up until the present day.

It is how God communicates with his children.

Therefore, revelation is not a principle that once existed but is no longer available or needed. While it may not seem available at times, as through modern-day Biblical-type prophets, it is still available.

Revelation, like God, was present yesterday, is present today and will be present forever. If it seems otherwise, it is only because we have replaced the principle of revelation with our own vaunted wisdom.

Remember:

“Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8).

As with Jesus, so with God. As with God, so with revelation.

“I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him” (Ecclesiastes 3:14).

Revelation is the means through which God reveals his will to mankind (all throughout the Bible).

It is how he has given us his plan of salvation, his gospel, or as I like to call it, his plan of happiness (all throughout the Bible).

It is how he extends knowledge to us of the past (the first chapters of Genesis before Moses to Moses).

It is how he extends knowledge to us of the future (all throughout the Bible).

It is how he issues warnings to his children of both dire events and dire consequences of our errant behavior (all throughout the Bible).

It is how he promises us of good things to come (all throughout the Bible).

It is how he shows us who he is, his attributes, what he is like (all throughout the Bible).

Basically, what it all boils down to is this: Everything we know about God, his works, his people and his relationship to his people come to us through revelation—from time immemorial to the present day.

If we say there is no revelation today, we are saying that God no longer communicates with his children.

If we say there is no need for revelation today, we are saying we no longer need God to communicate his will to us. Anyone paying attention to what is going on around us in the world today can hardly believe we no longer need revelation. More than ever, I say.

In either case, it presents us with a seemingly Godless Christianity—a religion whose God is either asleep, on vacation, who simply doesn’t care, or who is no longer interested in the welfare of his children.

In short, those who deny the reality of revelation deny themselves the blessings of the living word of God. In addition, those who preach that revelation is no longer needed deny themselves and their congregations those same blessings.

Many claim the Bible is all the revelation they need. Many preach it. They often say Jesus Christ was the final revelation, that nothing else is wanting. These are content to receive the ancient word of God given to a dead people thousands of years removed.

Is not God the same yesterday, today and forever? Would he not be just as pleased today as he was anciently to reveal his will to us, if there were anyone willing to receive it?

If God were content to reveal only the Torah to his people, which are the first five books of the Bible, he would have felt no need to continually reveal his living word to them. Thus, we would be without all the books of the Bible from Joshua to Malachi, and perhaps to Revelation as well. And his people would have been forever content to have Moses for their prophet and none other.

We find ourselves in pretty much the same condition today—forever content to have the Bible for our revelation and none other.

Still, the apparent lack of modern-day Biblical-type prophets does not negate revelation being an eternal principle, even though we know there have been periods where it appears the heavens have been silent.

We know that God has not spoken to prophets in every age, at least according to the records we have. There were over five hundred years of prophetic silence between Malachi and John the Baptist. And there have been more than two thousand years of prophetic silence since the martyrdom of the ancient apostles to the present day.

But because revelation is an eternal principle, we must come to the conclusion that prophetic revelation isn’t the only form of revelation existing between God and his children. Far more extensive than prophetic revelation, I believe, is personal revelation.

Where prophetic revelation is received by God’s chosen prophets, personal revelation may be received by every man, woman and child. Note Moses’ attitude toward this concept:

“And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the Lord, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle.
“And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.
“But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written [i.e., the seventy], but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp.
“And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp.
“And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.
“And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? Would [to] God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:24-29).

The point here is that revelation is both prophetic and personal. In fact, were we to experience the mere act of receiving the Lord’s spirit, we would all become prophets, receiving revelation—at least according to these verses.

That’s not to say we would, like Moses, be prophets to a people or to the world but at least within the confines of our own private homes and in the lives of our families.

So, according to Moses, we should all be in the position to have the spirit fall upon us and make us all prophets—every man, woman and child of us.

While I shall not go into details, as we should all be somewhat familiar with them, I will say that revelation is received by both prophets and “regular” people in a number of different ways:

Visions (the Book of Revelation);
Dreams (Jacob’s ladder);
Angelic visitations (Abraham, Lot);
Angelic visitations in dreams (Mary, Joseph);
Writings (ten commandments, writing on the wall of the palace of King Belshazzar);
Voices (Adam and Eve, Moses);
Intervention (Balaam’s ass); and
Inspiration (voices, feelings, intuition, etc.).

John’s Revelation is a wonderful example of God’s communication to mankind. While it is not typical of the kinds of communications we can receive from God, it is not atypical, either.

I have heard numerous stories of people receiving dreams of future events that have either already come to pass or yet remain in the future.

Supporting this idea, we have the words of the Old Testament prophet Joel. While speaking of terrible events to take place in the last days, he added these encouraging words:

“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
“And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit” (Joel 2:28-29).

These days are upon us.

The Book of Revelation is a current document and hence extremely relevant. It is even more valuable to us today than it was to those who heard its words in the days of John because it references our day as well as our near future.

So do not despise revelation or you will be despising the means by which God communicates his will to his children.

Also, without revelation, we cannot truly know the meaning of all the cryptic events described in the Book of Revelation, although we can still guess. But guessing doesn’t make it so, nor does publishing our guesses make it so.

On the other hand, be glad that revelation is an eternal principle and that it is as attainable to you and me today as it was in the days of Moses.

Remember:

“But covet [i.e., seek] earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew [i.e., show] I unto you a more excellent way” (1 Corinthians 12:31).

The gift of prophecy (verse 10) is a part of the principle of revelation, but not the only part. Make it yours.

And yet there is “a more excellent way.”

Did John Ever Taste of Death?

2011-04-16T10:10:00.003-05:00

According to Biblical tradition, it is suggested that John the beloved apostle (i.e., Revelator) never died but that he was to remain on earth until the Savior was to come again. The Lord spoke of this to his chosen disciples (i.e., apostles):

“But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:27).

While this is not specific to John, Mark also reported this saying but added more substance to what Luke reported:

“And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1).

Of course, the kingdom of God had already come in the person of Jesus Christ and he certainly demonstrated power. But he did not come in power. Quite the contrary.

The coming of Jesus Christ was about as humble an entrance as one could imagine—born in an animal keep, basically a barn or cave, surrounded by hay!

However, Jesus’ coming in power would not come until a much later date. This is verified when the Lord spoke to his apostles of his second coming:

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matt. 16:27-28).

However, the same problem exists in all three verses by the thee different authors and that is the use of the word “some.” “Some” would imply there would be more than one who would not taste of death.

The other problem here is that all the apostles’ deaths are accounted for—all except John. Of course, both problems would be overcome were there more than the twelve apostles present. But a previous, more intimate conversation earlier in Matthew 16, would indicate Jesus was alone with his chosen twelve.

On the other hand, Mark 8:34 indicates that other people were present during this major pronouncement:

“And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.”

There is no indication between this verse and Mark 9:1 that Jesus had separated his disciples from the crowd. However, the passage in Luke, while reporting on the same conversation as in Matthew 16, was very clear that Jesus had separated the twelve and was speaking to them privately.

“And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am?” (Luke 9:18).

So, when it comes right down to it, we’re left with the same conundrum of the usage of the word “same” in this great, if not shocking, pronouncement regarding the prolonging of death for some.

According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Greek#5100), the word for “some” in all three of these instances is tis. Strictly speaking, tis means “some or any person or object.” Therefore, we could easily say that ”some,” in these three instances, means “some person standing here shall not taste of death until . . .” The translators applied any number of different meanings to tis in various places, including, but not limited to, “somebody” and “something.” Therefore, it is my conclusion, for better or for worse, that tis in these three instances, is referring to “some person” rather than “some,” as in many.

On the other hand, we have the problem of the use of “they” in verse 28, referring back to the use of “some” previously. There could be several reasons for this:

Jesus never did say either “some” or “they”; and the translators just took some liberty;
The translators were merely matching “they” with their interpretation of tis as “some”; and
There really was more than one person who was not to taste of death until Christ comes in power.

Regarding option 3, Luke 9:18 would seem to eliminate that prospect. So, we’re left with either option 1 or 2 to consider.

Nevertheless, regardless of what the authors meant, it was up to impetuous Peter to drag a little more information out of Jesus regarding this tarrying business.

It seems obvious that something was different about John, or Peter wouldn’t have bothered to ask what he did. And here we find the best evidence yet that it was John who would not taste of death:

“Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

“Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

“Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

“Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

“This is the disciple [meaning himself; i.e., John] which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:20-24).

The Greek word for “tarry” is mĕnō, meaning “to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy” (Strong’s). mĕnō has been translated variously as “abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand” (ibid.)—all meaning pretty much the same thing.

Thus we can see that Jesus had in mind that John, in some state, would be present, presumably on earth, until such time he would return in glory. And this is not without precedent.

While not specifically mentioning translation, we have the case of Enoch, the father of Methuselah. Enoch lived only 365 years during a time when the Patriarchs were living seven to nine hundred plus years. In fact, Methuselah, was the oldest man on record at 969 years.

“And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:

“And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

“And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:

“And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him” (Gen. 5:21-24).

Paul, several thousand years later, knew of this and testified to the Hebrew saints:

“By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Hebrews 11:5-6).

While it is not specifically mentioned as a translation, it appears that Elijah, and perhaps Moses as well, were translated. Elijah, according to the reports, was taken up into heaven in a whirlwind, while “there appeared a chariot of fire” to distract Elisha from seeing him taken away. (See II Kings 2:1-11.)

We also know that the burial place of Moses was never found, although it is said that he died and was buried by the Lord. (See Deuteronomy 34:5-6.) Still, we have no proof of that.

It is not so much important that Elijah and Moses were translated, but rather it be understood that translation was a known fact among the early apostles. Presumably, each of these translated men yet had special missions to perform, for which they needed some version of their physical bodies.

While the word “translation” was not mentioned in the context of John, the circumstances surrounding his tarrying and Enoch’s translation are too close to consider mere coincidences. It is therefore my belief and contention that John the Beloved was translated that he might not taste of death so he could perform a special mission for Christ, whatever that might have been.

The question may then be asked: If John was indeed translated, does that mean he’ll never have to die? The answer to that is a simple, “No.”

Remember, Jesus did not say that John should not die, only that he was to tarry. Paul also talked about death in his discourse on the resurrection:

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22).

Here, we see that Paul made no exceptions for translated beings, and we have seen that he was aware of beings who were translated. I suspect, however, that the deaths of translated beings will be more like what Paul explained a few verses later:

“Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

“In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).

Apparently, John yet has an important role to play in the days that lead up to Christ’s coming in power and glory. If not, why have him tarry until he comes?

In summary, John was beloved of Jesus; an apostle and special witness of Jesus Christ, his works and mission; a prophet; a great revelator; and a lover of all mankind. We would all do well to emulate this great man.

What Was the Date of the Book of Revelation?

2011-04-16T09:32:00.000-05:00

Where the authorship of The Revelation is under some dispute, at least among modern-day scholars, the approximate date it was received is far less in doubt. Following is another sampling of twentieth century Biblical scholars:

“As regards to the church’s tradition in the matter, the following facts are known: (a) A diversity of dates was suggested for the book by late writers, including the reigns of Claudius (41-54), Nero (54-68), and Trajan (98-117). Certainly it does not commend these dates that they were proposed only by late writers like Epiphanius, Jerome, and others of the fourth and later centuries and on inconclusive evidence or none. . . . (b) The earlier church writers converged on a date in the reign of Domitian (81-96); such appears to be the united testimony of Melito of Sardis, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Victorinus, and Eusebius—church fathers ranging from the second to the fourth century. Jerome, too, knew of this tradition.

“A number of modern scholars, rejecting both sets of early tradition, have attempted to establish a date in the reign of Vespasian (69-79) . . .” (The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, p. 60.)

“On the whole, the Damitianic date appears to accord the best with the thesis of Revelation and with the contemporary condition of the church as represented in it. While it is not impossible that churches other than those mentioned in either the Acts or the Pauline letters existed in the province of Asia as early as the reign of Nero or of Vespasian, it is unlikely that the church had by such an early period reached the low moral and spiritual ebb reflected in Rev. 2-3. . . . Then, too, the attitude of the church toward the Empire had undergone great change from the earlier one reflected in Mark 12:17; Rom. 13:1; and even in I Pet. 2:13-17. Domitian strenuously insisted on the recognition of the divinity of the imperial line and by his day emperor-worship was the one universal cultus in Asia Minor, the one sort of pagan worship which is portrayed in Revelation as intolerable (cf. 13:11-18). Moreover, the Nero Redivivus theory in the developed form in which this figure is seen combining in his own person the characteristics of Beliar and the Antichrist . . . is found in Revelation (17:8-11; cf. 13:1ff)—a fact that which argues for a late date and most likely the reign of Domitian. Finally, a late date is suggested for the book if—as it seems—John employed a number of other NT books in searching for materials for his own (e.g., Matthew, Luke, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, I Peter, and James).” (ibid, p.61.)

“The generally agreed date of Revelation is in the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian (81-96). . .” (The Family Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 17, p. 3216.)

“The date of the Revelation is given by the great majority of critics as A.D. 95-97. Irenaeus says: ‘It [i.e., the Revelation] was seen no very long time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian's reign.’ Eusebius also records that, in the persecution under Domitian, John the apostle and evangelist was banished to the island Patmos for his testimony of the divine word. There is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place, and the style in which the messages to the Seven Churches are delivered rather suggests the notion that the book was written in Patmos.” (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 563.)

The interesting thing here is that even among the early church fathers, it was recognized that

This Revelation was given to the apostle John; and
It was given at a time long after the last of the other apostles of Jesus Christ had died. In other words, John was the last living apostle on the face of the earth.

This is also interesting because of the claim of the Mother Church that Peter was the last of the living apostles. However, according to most Biblical scholars, it is believed that Peter died a martyr for the cause of Christ in Rome circa 64 or 65 A.D.

Who Was the Author of the Book of Revelation?

2011-04-16T09:05:00.002-05:00

Who was this John, the writer of the Book of Revelation, who was exiled on a small penal colony on the Isle of Patmos for his testimony of Jesus Christ? Was he John, the beloved apostle, or John Mark, or some other John, known or unknown to modern Christendom?

While modern-day Biblical scholars, so-called, have quibbled over who the writer of The Revelation was, it is generally accepted by most Christians that he was the apostle whom Jesus loved. However, modern Bible scholars choose to believe otherwise.

Following is a representative sampling of what scholars of the twentieth century have said of John:

“. . . from the beginning of the church’s history much speculation has been rife about him. It was the almost universal belief of the ancient church from the middle of the second century that the author was the apostle John. Justin and Hippolytus at Rome, Tertullian in North Africa, Clement and Origen of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyons, all spoke of this John as one of the Lord’s apostles (or disciples). Modern scholarship, however, has remained unconvinced, preferring to identify the John of Revelation rather with John Mark, John the Elder, an otherwise unknown John, or a pseudonymous writer claiming for his work the prestige attaching to the name of the apostle.” (The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, p. 60.)

“. . . it cannot be said that John the seer of Revelation has been identified with any known John in the first century of the church’s life. There must have been many Christians of this name in those early days, and there is no internal proof that the church’s tradition identifying the seer with the apostle of the same name is correct. We know the John of Revelation only as the seer or prophet and shepherd that he claims to be.” (ibid.)

“. . . the author could have been one of several people having the common name John (JOHN THE APOSTLE; JOHN THE BELOVED DISCIPLE; JOHN THE DIVINE). (The Family Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 17, p. 3216, Curtis Books, Inc., New York, 1972.)

And lastly:

“Was St. John the apostle and evangelist the writer of the Revelation? The evidence adduced in support of his being the author consists of (1) the assertions of the author, and (2) historical tradition. (1) The author’s description of himself in the 1st and 22d chapters is certainly equivalent to an assertion that he is the apostle. He names himself simply John, without prefix or addition. He is also described as a servant of Christ, one who had borne testimony as an eye-witness of the word of God and the testimony of Christ. He is in Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. He is also a fellow sufferer with those whom he addresses, and the authorized channel of the most direct and important communication that was ever made to the Seven Churches of Asia, of which churches John the apostle was at that time the spiritual governor and teacher. Lastly, the writer was a fellow servant of angels and a brother of prophets. All these marks are found united in the apostle John, and in him alone of all historical persons. (2) A long series of writers testify to St. John's authorship. Justin Martyr (cir. 150 A.D.), Eusebius, Irenaeus (A.D. 195), Clement of Alexandria (about 200), Tertullian (207), Origen (233). All the foregoing writers, testifying that the book came from an apostle, believed that it was part of Holy Scripture. (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, pp. 562-563, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1984.)

So, what it comes down to is this:

We have modern-day Biblical scholars, who lived some two thousand years after the fact, arguing over who did and who did not write The Revelation; and
We have near contemporary Christian authors’ assertions that John, the beloved apostle, wrote The Revelation.

Who am I therefore to believe? Who would you believe?

Setting my own prejudices aside, I would still have to believe the near contemporaries who were closer to the situation than our modern-day scholars. One would have to believe their knowledge exceeds the knowledge of those up to two thousand years removed. At least, I am convinced.

Therefore, it is my conclusion that John, the apostle whom Jesus loved, was indeed the author of the Book of Revelation.

Whence Cometh Satan? (Part 3 of 3)

2010-05-24T17:15:00.001-05:00

Here is something else to consider: What do you do if one is found to be possessed with one of these evil spirits? And how do you know if one is possessed by an evil spirit?

Of course, Hollywood has given us the stereotypical view of how one behaves when possessed by a devil, or demon, as they often call it. Shown are all sorts of histrionics, aberrant and abhorrent behavior from the one possessed. You might hear guttural, evil-sounding voices emanating from the possessed one’s mouth, even a male’s voice coming from a female.

While all these effects may or may not be observed, I think they represent at best a very small portion of those actually possessed. It must also be remembered that Satan and his ministers can be very deceptive.

“And no marvel [i.e, marvel not]; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.” (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).

Thus, it may not be as easy as we might think to recognize one who is possessed by an evil spirit. In fact, because of the Hollywood portrayal, we might be led to think no one can be possessed unless the person acts in the Hollywood fashion.

Nothing could be further from the truth. To see what I mean, let’s examine some of the ways the Bible documents how evil spirits have manifested themselves in the their victims.

“As they went out, behold, they brought to him a dumb man possessed with a devil. And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel.” (Matthew 9:32-33).

From this example, we see that evil spirits can bind a person’s tongue so he cannot speak. Of course, today, we would pass that off as some sort of genetic or birth anomaly, unless it was caused by an accident. No possession; just DNA.

“And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered.” (Luke 11:14).

This could possibly be referring to the same event, although it is not preceded by the same circumstances as the other.

“Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.” (Matthew 12:22).

In this case, the victim could neither speak nor see. Yet, again, it was a devil who was the cause of this disability, not genetic makeup.

“And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child. And, lo, a spirit taketh him, and he suddenly crieth out; and it teareth him that he foameth again, and bruising him hardly departeth from him. And I besought thy disciples to cast him out; and they could not. And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you? Bring thy son hither. And as he was yet a coming, the devil threw him down, and tare him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and delivered him again to his father.” (Luke 12:38-42).

Mark’s version is a little more detailed, assuming this is the same case:

“And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them. And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him. And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them? And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not. He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child. And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us. Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead. But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.” (Mark 9:14-27).

DNA? Genes? An accident of birth? No, according to these scriptural references, the cause is clearly possession.

I’m not saying all persons suffering from these or other medical conditions are possessed by evil spirits. Nor am I saying those exhibiting these and similar symptoms cannot be possessed by evil spirits. What was true in Jesus’ time could certainly be as true today as it was then.

Remember that the evil spirits who exist today are the same ones who existed in Christ’s time. They are certainly capable of doing the same things now as they did then . . . and more. And why not, if no one’s going to pay them any mind?

So, what do we do in such cases where we can determine someone is possessed by an evil spirit? If you’re a Catholic, you perform exorcisms by one trained to do such a work. Even though these exorcism rites are not based on anything Biblical, they still seem to have some effect on occasion. Even people who were not followers of Jesus cast out devils in his name:

“And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.” (Mark 9:38-39; see also Luke 9:49-50).

However, their reward may not be the same as the followers of Jesus.

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:21-23).

So, how is it done? How was it done? How can we cast out evil spirits today?

By following the pattern Jesus set before us.

In Jesus’ day, he gave his twelve disciples, called apostles, power not only to cure disease, but also to cast out evil spirits.

“And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. . . . Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.” (Matthew 10:1,8).

“And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils” (Mark 3:14-15).

“Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.” (Luke 9:1).

And this is not all. Later on, Jesus gave the same powers to “another” seventy men. So, that’s at least 140 other disciples who were given this power.

“And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. . . . And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.” (Luke 10:8-9,17).

However, it goes even beyond these 152 men. Listen:

“And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils . . .” (Mark 16:17).

And as we have seen, in some instances fasting and prayer are necessary to cast out evil spirits, even when power has been given to cast them out. How is that determined, one might wonder? Perhaps if at first you don’t succeed, try it with fasting and prayer.

So, Jesus either cast out evil spirits by his own word, or his disciples cast them out using the name of Jesus, but only after Jesus gave them authority to do so.

The name of Jesus Christ is very powerful in such instances. Nevertheless, we need to be careful how we use that name in casting out devils, or we may wind up like the “seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests,” who used the name of Jesus without authority:

“Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded” (Acts 19:13-16).

Obviously, there was more than one evil spirit involved in this case or the results could not have occurred as described.

When casting out devils in the name of Jesus, we must keep in mind his warning (Matthew 7:21-23) and also the example of the “seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and the chief of the priests” (Acts 19:13-16). As we have seen, evil spirits do have great power. However, they also can be defeated by the name of Jesus when used with proper authority, as we have seen. Yet, the results are mixed when the name of Jesus is used outside of this given authority, as we have also seen.

This is not something to be trifled with. Yet the situation is far more real than, I think, most people realize. Satan and his angels have not gone to sleep, especially in these last days when they know their time is short.

Whence Cometh Satan? (Part 2 of 3)

2010-05-23T18:53:00.001-05:00

So, what exactly was this war in heaven fought over? Of course, we have no way of really knowing, save the heavens become open to us. Nevertheless, perhaps we can paint a picture of what might possibly have occurred, relying heavily upon conjecture. But that’s what we’re all about here: expressing opinions.

Let us look back and try to imagine the scene that took place.

We know this war took place in heaven, a place where one wouldn’t ordinarily think of as having conflict of any kind, let alone a war. I believe this war took place before Adam and Eve were placed on earth in their physical forms. I also believe this war occurred before “the morning stars [i.e., daughters of God] sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:7).

Of course, there’s no way to know for sure, except there does seem to be a logical pattern of progression here. First, a war fought in heaven. Second, the conclusion of the war. Third, God’s announcement of the physical creation of the earth and the laying of its cornerstone.

According to Revelation 12:7-12, this so-called war was more a war of words than, say fisticuffs or weapons. It seemed to revolve around the issue of salvation. For after Satan and his angels were cast to earth, the following exclamation was uttered: “Now is come salvation” (Revelation 12:10)!

Apparently, up until this moment, because of this war of words, no final decision could be announced regarding the subject of salvation or even the future of the earth. This leads me to wonder if, in Satan’s arrogance, he was trying to usurp the Father’s plan of salvation which centered in Jesus Christ. Could he have been posturing himself to be the Savior of the world instead of Jesus? That would have been worth arguing over, I would think.

In any event, the war of words had to be about something quite severe and critical, that the announcement regarding salvation couldn’t be made until after Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven. Whatever it was, Satan, or Lucifer, was in the center of the controversy and that controversy was serious enough to get him and his followers cast out of heaven. Perhaps they did, after all, try and force their viewpoint by brute force. Who knows for sure?

What we do know is this:

“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Revelation 13:8).

This would lend credence to the idea the war took place before Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden. After Satan and his angels were cast to earth, the idea of the Lamb slain “from the foundation of the world” would have been made sure and make more sense with the time line I’m trying to construct. Then, and only then, I believe, would the Father make the announcement wherein “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy”—after all other matters were settled.

You’ll note that Satan and his followers were cast to the newly created spirit-earth. (See “Is There One Creation Story or Two? (Part 3 of 3)”.) So, they actually had somewhere to go when they were cast out that was compatible to their spirit bodies.

At any rate, this is a possible picture.

Whatever the case may have been regarding Lucifer becoming Satan, or the Devil, here is one thing we do know: He and his angels were and are very angry at God and all of us. We, his brothers and sisters, did, after all, fight on the winning side. And, while he and his angels did not keep their first estate, apparently those who remained in heaven did keep their first estate. That would be us.

Here’s another thing to consider. Much is said about Satan, as though he were the only purveyor of evil known to mankind. It’s always, “The Devil this,” or “The Devil that,” and so forth. We tend to forget that when he was cast out of heaven, he brought with him a full third of the hosts of heaven. That’s one out of every three spirit children of God! That’s a lot of people!

“And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth . . .” (Revelation 12:3-4).

Remember, in the last days, Satan shall be revealed.

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [the second coming of Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

This is another witness that Satan attempted to exalt himself above even God. Perhaps the events portrayed in these verses will be a part of that revealing process—in a most remarkable way.

At any rate, Satan isn’t alone in his opposition to God and mankind. He has many helpers or assistants who are as equally angry as he is with God and us.

Here’s another thing. It has been estimated that between twenty and thirty billion people have inhabited this earth since the beginning of time, although no one can know for sure, short of new revelation.

But let’s stop there for a moment.

Let’s put the number at the more conservative 20 billion people. Cut that number in half and that’s the number of angels who were cast out of heaven with Lucifer. And that’s the number should there be no more spirits born on earth for the remainder of time. Even so, that’s 10 billion evil spirits! Or, to put it another way, that’s almost two devils assigned to every current man, woman and child on earth.

To make matters even worse, who do you think these evil spirits are going to concentrate most of their efforts on? Yeah, you guessed it: the followers of Christ—Christians! That’s you and me!

I wouldn’t be surprised if Satan has assigned at least one hundred of his fellow evil spirits to every Christian on earth. He certainly has the resources. And the anger.

Nevertheless, even under such foreboding odds, we have been given this promise:

“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.” (James 4:7).

Whence Cometh Satan? (Part 1 of 3)

2010-05-20T22:53:00.004-05:00

A lot of sermons have been preached about Satan. However, I wonder how many people, preachers included, actually know who Satan is and where he came from. Do we know why he is so determined to fight against God and all those who seek to do good in Christ’s name? Do we know why he is so hateful and downright evil?

To answer these questions, we have to go back before the physical creation of the earth, for that is where we first meet the one we call Satan, otherwise known as Lucifer, or the Devil.

There’s a curious verse in the epistle of Jude (KJV) that refers to the “first estate.” Nothing further is mentioned, nor is there any other reference to it in the entire Bible. Even so, I think we can make some assumptions regarding this verse.

“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” (Jude 6).

Assumption one: While the first estate is not common knowledge among us today, it may have been during the time of the apostles, or else Jude would likely have elaborated upon it.

Assumption two: If there were a first estate, it follows that there is also a second state, or why mention it in the first place?

Assumption three: If there were angels who didn’t keep their first estate, it follows there were angels who did keep their first estate.

Assumption four: If there were angels who did keep their first estate, it follows they would be allowed the opportunity to progress into their second estate, whatever that consisted of.

Assumption five: Habitation refers to a place of residence. Wherever this habitation was, this is where all these angels lived before they left.

Assumption six: Estate doesn’t refer to land holdings, but to a condition—mental, emotional, spiritual and/or material, or even location, or a combination of these things.

Assumption seven: There are at least three specific conditions or estates I can imagine:

our pre-mortal habitation (existence in heaven), wherever that was;
our present earth-life existence on earth; and
our post-mortal existence, wherever that will be.

Each of these conditions, or estates, are different in the following ways:

In our pre-mortal existence we were endowed with spirit bodies—what we were before that is not given;
In our present earth-life existence, we are given physical bodies of flesh and blood;
In our post-mortal existence, we will be given resurrected bodies—glorified and perfected.

Assumption eight: We don’t know what everlasting chains refer to, but I do not believe it stands for everlasting torture, as so much of our classical art depicts. Unfortunately, a lot of this classical art has become part of Christian thinking with regards to hell. I choose to believe Jude is referring to something other than God-administered torture, whatever that may be.

Assumption nine: The angels who did not keep their first estate were Satan and his followers.

Assumption ten: Satan and his angels left their habitation in heaven.

“And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And [Jesus] said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” (Luke 10:17-18).

Thus, Satan and his angels fell from heaven. That was the first fall; Adam and Eve represented the second fall. (I’m sure Satan didn’t fall like we would fall down the stairs. More likely, he fell from God’s grace and was removed from heaven, apparently with great speed—as lightning—probably through teleportation. I’m sure God can do that.)

Isaiah had an interesting way to put it:

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” (Isaiah 14:12-15).

Here, the Lord is uttering a proverb against the latter-day king of Babylon (verse 4). The Hebrew suggests a simile or a parable, comparing the king’s arrogance with the arrogance of Lucifer when, in heaven, he sought to exalt himself above even God, so it would seem. In his arrogance, this latter-day king also seems to exalt himself above even God. Could this be the Beast of the Book of Revelation? The Anti-Christ?

Lucifer, now known as Satan or the Devil, is the source of power of this last king of Babylon, which city, signifies the seat or central place of evil. This king shall follow Lucifer down to whatever hell is.

These verses give us a clue as to why Lucifer was cast out of heaven. However, it’s hard to imagine how anyone could be so brazen as to think he could exalt himself above the very God who created him—and to his face, no less! Yet, these verses certainly suggest this.

Still, it seemed to go far beyond this arrogance:

“And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.” (Revelation 12:7-12).

It’s apparent that Lucifer wasn’t satisfied with merely having a differing opinion. It would seem he wanted to force his opinion on the rest of the children of God. Yes, Lucifer was as much a pre-mortal child of God as you and I were and are. Hard to imagine, isn’t it? Yet, it’s true. We all come from the same place. We all have the same Father, else heaven was invaded by Satan and his angels. Right?

What of So-Called Past Lives? (Part 2 of 2)

2010-05-01T21:38:00.004-05:00

The question may then be asked: Why were the sons and daughters of God so excited about the laying of the earth’s foundations and cornerstone, whatever the latter may have consisted?

Could it not be anticipation for something they had been looking forward to for a very long time? Could it be they understood God was creating a new home for them in a new setting? New opportunities for growth and development?

With a new setting came different types of bodies to deal with, consisting of grosser material, but fashioned after the manner of their spirit bodies, which were created in the image and likeness of God. Trials and suffering would be part of their learning experiences, although they had no way of knowing or understanding the lengths, widths and depths of that sorrow and suffering. These would be the refiner’s fire spoken of in “Who Are We? (Part 2)”.

“Wherein ye [i.e. the elect of God] greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:6-7).

From these verses we see that trials are an integral part of life—for our benefit!

“Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.” (1 Peter 4:12-14).

From these verses we not only learn that fiery trials are a necessary part of life, but also that through them, we may be made “partakers of Christ's sufferings; that . . . [we] may be glad also with exceeding joy”

It is the Spirit of God, or the Holy Ghost, that enables us to be happy or glad in our trials. Conversely, if we are not happy or glad in our trials, it might just be we do not actually possess the Holy Spirit, regardless of what we might have been told.

Not only is our earth life to be filled with these trials, the church itself shall be tried and judged.

“For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.” (1 Peter 4:17-19).

We also know both the saints (and by association, the church) shall be overcome by the beast in the last days, if only for a season.

“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” (Revelation 13:7).

And many shall suffer martyrdom at the hands of that beast.

“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” (Revelation 20:4).

In light of all these things, I cannot see how there could possibly be anything resembling the Rapture, which will purportedly save us from all these fiery trials that are a necessary part of our growth and learning experiences, let alone prevent us from partaking of Christ’s sufferings.

The question may then be asked: Did we know beforehand about all these trials we would undergo as part of our earth life experiences? I believe we did. Consider the following.

Earthly parents, at least good ones, try to prepare their children for entrance into the “real” world so they can be good and responsible adults, and in turn, good parents. They try and give them the benefit of their own experiences so their children don’t have to go through them.

Even so, they know their children will have to go through their own learning experiences and make their own decisions, learning continually from the “School of Hard Knocks.” In all this, the earthly parents remain there for their children should they need their help.

Can anything less be expected of our heavenly Parents? (See “Is There a Mother in Heaven?” Are they lower than our earthly parents? I don’t think so.

Are not God’s ways higher than man’s ways?

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Indeed, God’s ways are higher than man’s ways—which might make one consider the following questions:

“What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him? and that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him?” (Job 7:17).

“When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:” (Psalms 8:3-6).

If you have been following my blogs, it would appear we are much closer to God, our Father in heaven, than is generally allowed, even by preachers. In fact, all things considered, it would seem that we are surely of the race of God! How awesome is that!

Given all the evidence thus far presented, what other conclusion can possibly be drawn?

Got any better ideas?

What of So-Called Past Lives? (Part 1 of 2)

2010-04-29T08:00:00.003-05:00

There’s a lot of talk in the alternative press and publishing industry these days about past lives some claim they have experienced. Oddly, most of these supposed past lives seems to have taken place in ancient Egypt or the supposed Atlantis, two centerpieces of a lot of modern cultism. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I don’t believe in coincidences.

What typically happens is someone goes to a hypnotist. Under hypnosis, the subject is regressed to his birth and then just continues backward . . . all the way to ancient Egypt or Atlantis! The subject is then able to relate, often quite accurately, events of some person who lived during that time period—usually someone who can be checked on.

Not only have most of these hypnotized people lived in ancient Egypt or Atlantis, a large preponderance of them seem to have inhabited the bodies of various royal households. Another coincidence?

While the Bible doesn’t have anything to say about past-life regression, it does have something to say about past lives. If you’ve been following this blog, you might remember a few such verses.

In “Is There One Creation Story or Two? (Part 3)”, we learned we were created as spirit beings during Day 6 (See Genesis 1:26-27)—that is, during the spirit creation of the earth. You might also recall that all the host of heaven and earth, including us, were created prior to Day 7 of the creation story (see Genesis 2:1), and this was before “every plant of the field . . . was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew” (Genesis 2:5; underscoring mine).

So right from the beginning, we find we existed before mortality. Hence, you could say we indeed have experienced past lives. But in Egypt, Atlantis, or some other place, through a previous mortal birth? I don’t think so, and the Bible certainly doesn’t support this idea.

What this so-called past-life regression preaches is the supposed reality of reincarnation. In other words, we are born, die and are born again into another physical body—maybe human, maybe as an insect, according to which version of reincarnation one subscribes to.

This continues until one finally reaches the state of nirvana, a place or state characterized by freedom from or oblivion to pain, worry and the external world. It also signals the end of the cycle of personal reincarnations. It is attained as a result of the extinction of individual passion, hatred and delusion (Dictionary.com).

What likely is taking place in these past-life regressions is the act of channeling. Channeling takes place when one is highly open to suggestion, usually while under hypnosis or entrancement.

My belief is this: A lying spirit takes possession of the one entranced and speaks through him, or more likely, her, sometimes even with a different voice. (Check out the bookstores and you’ll see that most channeling books are authored by women.)

Lying spirits have been around since Adam and Eve. Satan wasn’t the only evil one on earth, although he is the only one mentioned at that time. These other evil ones, with Satan, were together cast out of heaven for rebellion.

““And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” (Revelation 12:9; see verses 3-4,7-12).

Thus we know that when Satan was cast to the earth, his followers—his angels—were cast out with him. So we know they were at least on earth at the time of Adam and Eve. Whether they were present in the Garden of Eden is irrelevant. The point is: Satan was present, and that was enough. (The subject of Satan and his angels will be covered at length in a future blog.)

Most would consider this narrative of the war in heaven to apply to some future date, being in the Book of Revelation and all. However, the fact that Satan and his angels have been around since the days of Adam and Eve would belie that idea.

Therefore, any one of Satan’s angels or followers could have been present in ancient Egypt, Atlantis (if there were such a place), Greece or anywhere else. Thus, he would have a personal knowledge of the events that transpired in that ancient one’s life. And these lying spirits don’t have a veil of forgetfulness placed upon them, they being without physical bodies.

So the lying spirit may actually be telling the truth about real events in the life of someone who lived long, long ago. However, he speaks in the first person through the entranced or hypnotized one, giving one the impression that the person is actually speaking as though he were that ancient person. (Confused?)

Even though the lying spirit might be speaking the truth about the events in the ancient one’s life, the lie would be that past-life regression validates reincarnation.

Whatever the case may be, there is nothing in the Bible that supports reincarnation, although many use various scriptures out of context to try and support this idea.

Still, we really did have past lives. What they consisted of we cannot now say, having a veil of forgetfulness placed upon us. Therefore, it would be fruitless to try and speculate. We simply have no information to go on, other than we existed before mortality. Hence, we lived past lives.

Nevertheless, the Bible does contain information, other than those verses previously referred to, that support the idea of our having lived before we were born into physical bodies. In fact, we can take it as far back as the beginning of the creation of the physical world.

“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars [i.e. daughters of God] sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7).

We can see from these verses that the sons and daughters of God were present at the laying of the foundations of the earth. We know this to be the physical creation because we, as part of the hosts of heaven and earth, were created before “every plant of the field . . . was in the earth and every herb of the field before it grew” (Genesis 2:5).

The interesting thing is: This celebration was at the laying of the cornerstone of the earth when “the [daughters of God] sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy”.

Webster defines a cornerstone as “a stone laid in the corner of a building, especially at a ceremony for beginning a building” (Webster’s NewWorld Dictionary, Second Concise Edition, 1982).

It would be easy enough to apply that definition to the earth as it was being created. And in honor of the laying of earth’s cornerstone, whatever that may have been, all the sons and daughters of God were gathered together for this special occasion and all were thrilled at what was happening. That must have been quite a crowd.

Did Adam And Eve Need to Fall?

2010-04-12T15:34:00.003-05:00

Many Christians believe that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of the forbidden fruit, we would be living joyful lives in the Garden of Eden with them, even to this day. If not in the garden itself, then certainly somewhere else on the paradisaical earth that was their pre-fall home.

Think about it. There would be no death, no sickness, nothing but happiness and joy! Doesn’t that sound wonderful indeed?

But is it realistic?

No sickness would be nice, but no death?

It’s been estimated some 20-30 billion people have lived on earth since the beginning of human habitation on this planet. I personally think it’s closer to the 30 billion mark. Add to that our current 6+ billion people and you have quite a handful.

Overpopulation, anyone?

There’s been concerns since the late 1960s about the alleged overpopulation of the planet. Personally, I’ve never considered this a problem. I always figured God knew what he was doing and would have had a plan to handle this potential problem. Unfortunately, mankind also has a plan to handle this situation; we just kill each other with abandon—wars, wars and more wars, sadly, most in the name of one religion or another.

Still, the argument persists. However, I would agree that our large cities are overpopulated. There’s plenty of space out in the country.

But think what it would be like if there were 30+ billion people on the earth all at one time. That would be the result if death hadn’t been introduced into the world. So, is no death really what we would want?

Then there’s the matter of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If God had wanted Adam and Eve to live forever in the Garden of Eden, would he have planted the tree of knowledge of good and evil in their midst? And then command them not to partake of it? It would seem rather counterproductive if they were to remain in the garden forever, don’t you think?

The truth is: If that’s all God ever did, Adam and Eve would likely still be in the garden to this very day—all by themselves! (I’ll get to that in a minute.) Why? Because God told them not to partake of it. They didn’t know to do anything different. They were like little children. They were as innocent as babes. Remember:

“And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” (Genesis 2:25).

So, what did God do? He allowed Satan, personified as a serpent, to enter the garden to tempt Adam and Eve. Tempt them to do what? To partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Right. You knew that.

If God had meant for Adam and Eve to remain forever in the garden, why on earth would he allow Satan into the garden to tempt them to eat of the forbidden fruit? Just because? I don’t think so. God doesn’t do anything “just because.” He’s not a scientist in a laboratory and we are not his white mice.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil was Adam and Eve’s only no-no. They had the green light for everything else. So that’s what Satan worked on. Surely God didn’t think Adam and Eve could, even in their innocence, resist the Tempter’s snares forever? Would your little 2-year-old under similar circumstances?

The only conclusion I can draw is that God fully intended Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit because death was to be an integral part of the human experience. And not just physical death, but spiritual death, or separation from the immediate presence of God. I also believe death was necessary so Adam and Eve could fulfill the commandment they, and all of us, were given when we were first created.

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28).

Are two babies ashamed of their nakedness when placed next to each another? No, of course not. Neither were Adam and Eve because they were as innocent as those two babes.

If you have one baby boy and one baby girl next to each other, would they immediately start having sexual desires? Of course not. And neither did Adam and Eve, nor could they until they lost their innocence and became mortal.

If Adam and Eve had remained in the garden until this day, they would be just as innocent as they were the day they were first brought together. How could it be otherwise?

Because death was necessary, the fall was necessary. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually have to fall and become mortal or else no children would be born into the world. Hence, the necessity of Satan to tempt them to partake of the forbidden fruit. Basically, Adam and Eve fell so we might be born into the world, although they didn’t know it at the time.

All joy and happiness?

Isn’t it a true statement that we cannot truly know either joy nor happiness until we’ve known sorrow and unhappiness? What would there be to compare joy against, for instance, if we had not known sorrow? Nothing. Without sorrow, we would be in a constant state of joy without even knowing we were experiencing joy. What joy is there in that?

I believe the greater the depths of the sorrow and unhappiness we experience allows us to be able to experience joy and happiness to that same degree. It’s similar to the law of physics that states: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. We can only know joy and happiness to the degree that we have experienced sadness and unhappiness. The same goes for all the other emotions, I believe.

But remember this: Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence. Without whatever the tree of knowledge of good and evil was or represented, well . . . they could not know what good and evil were. Without good and evil being present, how could they experience those emotions that are associated with them?

They couldn’t.

And that’s why Adam and Eve had to partake of the forbidden fruit. If they didn’t, they would never be able to experience happiness or joy, nor pain or hurt or sorrow.

I know we often wish we didn’t have to experience pain, hurt, sorrow nor any of the other negative emotions. Yet, they’re all part of the earth experience. We wouldn’t be able to experience the highs without having to experience the lows. And neither could Adam and Eve.

So, we might say there are at least three grand benefits that derived from the fall of Adam and Eve, and without any perceived drawbacks (by me, at any rate):

We get to be born.
We get to experience a wide variety of emotions and life drama—some good and some bad, but all instructive.
We get to die.

Now, some may not look at the experience of death and dying as benefits. But remember this: As life existed before this mortality, so will life exist after this mortality.

Physicists are now saying that consciousness is eternal. Some are even saying that consciousness and photons (light particles) are all there is at the quantum level.

Our consciousnesses didn’t just spring into existence the moment we exited from our mothers’ wombs. They are eternal. We are eternal.

I’ll touch upon that subject next time. Until then, peace and joy.

Who Are We? (Part 3 of 3)

2010-04-08T17:35:00.002-05:00

“He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” (John 1:11-12).

These are they who have received God. However, it isn’t enough to merely receive God; God must, in turn, receive them (review Hebrews 12:5-7). And when God receives one such, he chastens them. He tries them in the furnace of affliction that they might be refined as silver and gold.

“Wherefore come out from among them [i.e., unbelievers, infidels and idol worshipers], and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing [temples with idols] ; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:17-18).

Again, we see God taking the role of father (Father) to us, calling us his sons and daughters . . . if we separate ourselves from the unbelievers, etc.

As far as separating ourselves from idol worshipers, we might want to consider exactly what an idol is. In the Old Testament they were most often graven images from stone, metal or wood, which they worshiped and paid homage to.

In modern parlance, we may say idols are those things we spend most of our time and energy on—whether it’s money or the pursuit of money, sports, computers, entertainment (television, movies, music, computers, and so forth)—even family! (I can see hackles rising with that last one!)

But here’s what Jesus said about that:

“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:37).

One would assume wife or husband are also included in that list. Even so, that’s a pretty powerful statement and one that is not generally heard over the pulpit, I think. But remember the first and great commandment:

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” (Matthew 22:37).

First, love God and his Christ, then love family.

“And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Matthew 22:39).

Family is the most intimate neighbor, wouldn’t you say? Anyway, I didn’t say it; Jesus did. Discipleship is not easy for those who do not put God and his Christ first.

I’m sure there will be many who disagree with my conclusions. However, you’re welcome to make comments and we can discuss them.

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God” (Romans 8:14-16).

When we are truly led by the Spirit of God, we love God first and foremost above all other things. Then we are sons and daughters of God, having received the spirit of adoption. And the “Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God”.

The Greek word for adoption implies sonship in respect to God. (James Strong, Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon Press, 1973.)

Basically, it means we are once again accepted and connected to God as we were before the fall of Adam and Eve—literal sons and daughters of God!

“To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” (Galatians 4:5-7).

Once again, we see ourselves as being heirs of God through Christ, even joint-heirs.

“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:16-17).

And what has Christ inherited?

“All things that the Father hath are mine” (John 16:15).

That doesn’t leave much out, does it? And if we are “heirs of God through Christ,” even “joint-heirs”, what, then, do we inherit?

“He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son” (Revelation 21:7).

All things! But what are all things?

“All things that the Father hath.”

Even as Christ received all things of the Father, so also will we receive all things of him, being joint-heirs with Christ! What greater reward could we possibly imagine! Think about what this implies! But we must first overcome. But what exactly is it we need to overcome?

“For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” (1 John 5:4-5).

“Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:21).

“. . . I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one.” (1 John 2:13).

We must overcome the world by faith in Jesus Christ. We must overcome evil by doing good. In doing so, we shall overcome the evil one, even Satan and his myriads of dark angels.

We started out as sons and daughters of God. When the Adam and Eve and the world fell, we fell with it. We can once again be accepted as pure sons and daughters of God through the atonement of Jesus Christ and faith in him. And with Christ, we can receive all things the Father has. There are not words sufficient to describe what that entails.

“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” (1 Corinthians 2:9).

What more is there to say? Big rewards: big expectations.

Who Are We? (Part 2 of 3)

2010-04-05T11:31:00.003-05:00

If we are truly sons and daughters of God as the scriptures tell us (see Who Are We? (Part 1 of 3), then what about all the scriptures that tell us we may become sons and daughters of God? This certainly presents a spiritual conundrum. But there is an answer.

Adam and Eve were created in a paradisaical state. Yet, God introduced the idea of death to them, even though they likely had no conception of what that meant. How could they? Nothing had ever died before! Still, God warned them not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil or they would die.

We do not know what the tree of knowledge of good and evil was, nor what sort of fruit it bore. What we do know is that by eating it, Adam and Eve would die. The only thing we can assume is whenever they partook of this forbidden fruit, some sort of change came over their bodies that made dying possible. We don’t know what that change was; we may never know. But something happened, and as a result of their disobedience, they became subject to death and were ushered out of their paradisaical glory.

Whatever changes took place in Adam and Eve’s bodies must also have taken place in the bodies of all the animals, for they became wild and ferocious, or at least wild. So, we know the change wasn’t necessarily in the fruit itself because the animals didn’t eat the fruit, but yet they, too, were subject to death.

The fall affected the earth as well, for we know it was cursed for Adam’s sake (see Genesis 3:17). So, because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, the entire world, and everything on it, fell from the glorified state it was in at the time. Fell into what? Into mortality. Into death and dying. Into working by the sweat of one’s brow. Into painful birthing. Into trials and afflictions. In short, into life as we know it.

Mankind would have remained in its fallen state forever had not Jesus Christ come to bring us back to that original state of innocence through his atonement for our sins. Even though mankind’s innocence was lost in the fall, Christ brought it back again, or at least gave us the opportunity to attain it again. Remember what Jesus said?

“And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:2-4)

And what are some of the greatest characteristics of little children? Their innocence. Their willingness to obey. Their unconditional love. Through Christ we can once again obtain this state of innocence through humility and faith in him.

Yet, this is not all. In our new state of innocence we are brought back into the presence of God, although this is not as easy as it is often made out to be.

Because God wants us to return to him, he has offered us help, even as a father (Father) to a son or a daughter.

And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?” (Hebrews 12:5-7).

The following are Greek renderings of the four key words in these verses, followed in parentheses by dictionary definitions where needed. The Greek comes from James Strong’s Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, from The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon Press, 1973. The dictionary used is Webster’s NewWorld Dictionary, Simon and Schuster, 1982.

exhortation: imploration (beseeching, earnestly asking for something); hortation (encouraging or urging to good deeds); and solace (comfort, relief).
chastening: to train up a child; to educate; to discipline by punishment.
rebuked: to confute (to prove a person to be in error); to admonish (to caution against specific faults; to warn; to reprove mildly; to exhort; to inform or remind by way of a warning).
scourgeth: flog (to beat with a stick, to whip).

You might wonder why I’ve gone to all the trouble of pointing out these things. I did it in order to show you the depth of feelings God has for each of us.

Remember when I said we are like God? Do we not, as well as God, encourage our children to do good deeds, to earnestly ask them to mind or behave properly, comfort them, to warn them, to mildly reprove them, and so forth? Do we not train up a child by educating them in the ways of rightness?

Like God, a good parent gives their children choices. We attach appropriate consequences to those choices. And then we enforce those consequences when the choices are made, no matter how hard it may be to do so. God does the same. And we may or may not like the results, depending on what we have chosen to act upon.

Punishment may seem mean or cruel, especially in today’s prevailing practice of no pain at any cost. We’re not talking about mean-spirited punishment, born of anger or frustration. We’re talking about God’s punishment where he enforces the consequences of the choices we make. In a sense, man punishes himself when he makes poor choices.

God treats us as sons and daughters if we endure chastening, or discipline. Remember, too, discipline comes from the same root word as disciple. A disciple is a follower of a teacher or school of thought (Webster’s, ibid.). In this case, the teacher is Jesus Christ and the school of thought is the Gospel.

Of course, God doesn’t literally flog us. Hopefully, we don’t flog our children, either. However, sometimes God does use our enemies to flog us—physically, emotionally or emotionally—in order to wake us up to his Godship and our sonship and daughtership. The Old Testament is full of examples where God used the enemies of the Israelites to attack and even conquer them when they had wandered away from the one true God to other gods.

What we have learned from all of this is that if God receives us, he chastens, disciplines and trains us in the ways of righteousness . . . as though we were his literal children, which, strangely enough, we are! The Old Testament version of this is known as refining and trials.

“But he knoweth the way that I take: when he hath tried me, I shall come forth as gold” (Job 23:10).

Is that not a refining process—through trials? Job certainly had a multitude of trials come upon him that would shake most of us to our very cores.

God tries us so we come out refined as gold. It is trials, not freedom from trials that refine us. That goes as much for the end times as it did in the New and Old Testament times. Is not God the same yesterday, today and forever? If he tries his sons and daughters in one age, will he not try them in another?

The Rapture, so called, supposedly frees us from those trials relative to the end of times. Is that really God’s way to purify us?

“Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction” (Isaiah 48:10).

It is affliction, not freedom from affliction that purifies us.

“And I will bring the third part [the other two died] through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God” (Zechariah 13:9).

Trials, not freedom from trials. Refining, not freedom from refining. Afflictions, not freedom from afflictions. These are God’s way of purifying us, not whisking us away from all these growth experiences. At least, that’s the way I see it.

If we are God’s, he is going to try us and refine us, that we may come out of the furnace of affliction as silver and gold. That’s why I do not believe God’s people will escape the furnace of affliction in the last days, regardless of the popular notion that they will. If they escape these trials and afflictions, they will not come away purified and refined as silver and gold.

Like Ripley, I say, Believe It Or Not. I condemn no one for his or her beliefs. However, I do try and apply some amount of reasoning to mine. You are free to agree or disagree.

Who Are We? (Part 1 of 3)

2010-04-03T09:22:00.003-05:00

“Who are we?” is certainly one of the most important and widely discussed religious and philosophical questions known to mankind. Yet, when all the arguments have been laid on the table, there is still no consensus among the various parties.

The wise philosophers (in their own eyes) depend on their innate reasoning powers to reach their conclusions. Yet, those conclusions vary widely. There are as many opinions as there are philosophers.

The great religions of the world—Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc.—do not fair any better. They cannot even agree on a single God, let alone the answer to this important question. Sadly, Christianity, with its multitude of factions, is not united on the issue, either.

Nevertheless, being of the Christian faith, I must ask: Who does the Bible say we are?

“That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.” (Acts 17:27-29).

Paul first quotes the Roman poets, with whom they were undoubtedly familiar, then affirms them by saying, “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God . . .”.

The Hebrew word for offspring means kin, taken from a root meaning to cause to be or to become. (James Strong, Dictionary of the New Testament, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon Press, 1973).

Of course, we already know we came from God, having been created in his image and likeness (see Genesis 1:26-27). But are we truly offspring of God or merely kin? Either would be awesome, would it not?

Prefacing a series of commands from the Lord, Moses said this to the children of Israel:

“Ye are the children of the Lord your God . . .” (Deuteronomy 14:1).

Is this to be taken this literally or is it to be taken spiritually? I believe it can be taken either way. However, in this instance, it was meant to be taken literally. The usage of children in this verse is the same as it is applied to mean children in other applications involving earthly parents or even as the children of Israel. (ibid.) Thus, the children of Israel, and we by implication, are literally the children of the Lord our God.

God himself added this endorsement:

“Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God” (Hosea 1:9-10).

By implication, “Ye are also the daughters of the living God.” That’s pretty clear, but it gets even better.

“I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” (Psalms 82:6).

Lest you think this is merely an opinion of man (i.e., Asaph, the writer of the psalm), remember: Jesus lent credence to this verse by quoting it to the Jews:

“Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:32-34).

Now, we can make of this what we will, and some will spiritualize it away, but either the Bible means what it says or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, then what else does the Bible say and not mean? Where does it stop?

I don’t believe this verse means we are Gods (big G), but that we are gods (little g) in the sense that we came from God and are, in fact, of him. Therefore, if we are sons and daughters of God as the scriptures tell us, then we are of the race of God!

Do you find this offensive or blasphemous? Remember, we were created by him; we are of him; we are like him. It is true that in our current condition we are less than perfect, but remember also that through the Holy Spirit we may grow “unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13).

Thus we may become even as Jesus Christ. And as such, we have been promised the opportunity to be joint-heirs with Christ:

“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Romans 8:16-17).

There’s a catch, as you can see: “if so be that we suffer with him”.

The Rapture is a popular notion today among many Christians. It is supposed to save Christians from having to suffer with Christ in the tumultuous end-times. Yet, according to these verses, if we don’t suffer with Christ, we have no promise of the heirship of God and joint-heirship with Jesus Christ. This being the case, we should not attempt to sidestep the suffering that is to come. Should we?

For those of us who would suffer with Christ, we might ask: What does it mean to be a joint-heir with Christ?

Joint-heirship is the equal sharing of a bequeathing. This does not mean the willed property, as it were, is divided equally among the heirs so that each possesses a small portion of the whole. It means that each heir of a joint-heirship is entitled to share in the whole of the estate. One does not possess more or less than the other. They share equally in its entirety and enjoy the rights of the whole.

In the case of being a joint-heir with Christ, it means we share equally with Christ—even all he receives from the Father. And what is that?

“All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” (John 16:15).

The Greek word for shew (i.e., show) is to announce. The Revised edition translates it as declares. (ibid.)

Thus, all things the Father has are Christ’s. Nothing is held back. And if we suffer with Christ, then according to the promise, all things the Father has will be ours! Can there be any greater promise than this?

“But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9).

Whatever we may think of these ideas, the scriptures are clear enough: We are literally “the children of the most high,” and “the sons [and daughters] of the living God.”

The question is or should be: Do we really believe this or do we just give it lip service? Do we believe these great promises are literal or do we spiritualize them away?

The answer to these questions may be more important than we realize.

The Creation of Adam: Literal or Figurative?

2010-03-29T06:34:00.014-05:00

Of course, only God knows the answer to this question, and it’s really not necessary for our salvation to know. But, that’s the whole point of this blog: to discuss Biblical subjects that aren’t usually talked about over the pulpit that have absolutely no bearing on our salvation. God never said we couldn’t think.

But on to Adam:

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7).

One has to wonder at this description. It’s certainly not very scientific, and I believe God is a perfect scientist—all-knowing that he is.

There certainly seems to be a lot missing in this one-sentence description of the most important of all of God’s creations: man—Adam—the first of those created in the image and likeness of God himself.

After giving it much thought, I believe this particular event was symbolic in nature. What it’s symbolic of, I’m not sure. It may be that God just didn’t intend for us to fully understand the actual creation process of man. Who knows? Nevertheless, let’s take a look at it as if it were a literal creation.

Note: I’ll be using some poetic license here, so, bear with me. No disrespect to God is intended, although I may seem a little cheeky. One can only imagine what actually took place in that one unelaborated sentence. And that’s what I’ll be doing: imagining.

So the scene opens with God gathering a wheelbarrow full of dirt and taking it to his laboratory. (Where else would he take it?) He moistens it to keep it from falling apart, or perhaps he uses clay, which has a tendency to adhere better than mere dirt and water.

He then fashions a sculpture in his own image and likeness. He pokes holes in the nostrils and then breathes into them. All of a sudden, the sculpture magically comes to life, complete in every detail as follows (and more):

A brain, with its billions, if not trillions, of neural pathways and ability to store tremendous amounts of information, most of it unbeknownst to its owner.
Bones, wonderfully connected together to allow for maximum movement of the entire body.
A muscular system, magically connected to the bones and held in place by tendons and sinews, that allow for this movement.
A circulatory system that, among many other things, carries nutrients and oxygen to every cell in the body, including the muscular system.
A multitude of different types of cells that form the basis of all bodily systems, and all working together for the good of the whole body.
A heart, with its uncompromising ability to keep that blood flowing to each and every cell of the body.
The entire integrated digestive system, a marvel in itself, that breaks down nutrients, thus making them available to be carried into the bloodstream into every cell of the body.
A wonderful immune system with its white blood cells which seek out, attack and destroy all invaders.
A lymphatic system which eliminates the products of cellular breakdown and bacterial invasion, among many other important bodily functions, and is tied closely to the cardiovascular system.
Several marvelous waste disposal systems—for solids and liquids—including but not limited to sweating, nasal, ear, eye and throat excretions.
A wonderful and marvelous reproductive system that just happens to have the one thing necessary to create new life in the yet uncreated woman. What’s the chance of that happening by mere chance? How about zero to the infinitesimal degree?
Symbiotic relationships, such as good bacteria in the digestive system.
The most massive organ of them all, the skin, which holds everything in place and provides other functionality as well.
All other organs and systems of the human body.And everything else I have not listed.

That’s a lot to ask for, for one puff of breath . . . even for a Godly puff.

The design that went into the human body is a miracle beyond miracles when you consider how everything is integrated together, yet each organ and system working its own individual miracles. And the deeper one gets into the body’s functioning (via microscope), the more miraculous it becomes.

I must admit that given the complexity of the human body, I have a hard time with the one-puff-of-air theory of creation from a sculpture of dirt or clay. The only choice I have is to consider that one creation sentence symbolic in nature. What do you think?

I will briefly discuss the creation of Eve. It is different and equally mystifying.

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . . And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:18,21-22).

I’m not a geneticist, so I don’t know what it would take to covert a male rib bone into a full-blown female, complete with all of the above systems of Adam—minus some male-only items and including some female-only items. I could imagine God taking Adam back to his laboratory and performing surgery on him to remove his rib. He would have to do some major tinkering with the DNA and ‘x’ and ‘y’ chromosomes. Whatever he did, it had to have been a very complicated procedure.

I could imagine he could take one cell from the bone and do all the aforementioned tinkering, then afterward grow her up. But that would take some time, I would think. But then, we don’t know how long Adam was out.

If God grew Eve from a single cell of Adam’s rib, why couldn’t he have just taken a skin cell? All the ingredients are there as well as in a rib bone. If we mere mortals know this, surely God did. Why then did he need to extract an entire bone? I can only draw one conclusion: The creation of Eve was also symbolic in nature. What do you think?

On the other hand, if God had simply cloned the bone, he would have gotten another Adam.

I personally do not believe God works in this way. Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, our heavenly Father. I believe Eve was created in the image and likeness of our heavenly Mother. (See Is There a Mother in Heaven?)

Some might point to Ezekiel’s experience in the Valley of Bones (see Ezekiel 37:1-10) to show how God can do some pretty amazing creations. Possibly, but let’s look a little bit closer.

Some might point to Ezekiel’s experience in the Valley of Bones (see Ezekiel 37:1-10) to show how God can do some pretty amazing creations. Possibly, but let’s look a little bit closer.

Ezekiel saw the apparent resurrection of a vast field of bones into a huge army, watching bones, sinews, muscles, etc., and finally skin come together. Nevertheless, in verse 11 God says the bones are “the whole house of Israel.” Reading on, we discover the entire sequence is analogous to Israel’s return to their fabled Jerusalem, comparing it to a resurrection. There was no real resurrection, as Jesus was the first fruits of them that slept (see 1 Corinthians 15:20).

Even if it were a vision of a real resurrection, the bones became the person who originally laid them there, not into someone else, let alone someone else of the opposite sex.

So, if these two creations were literal, with a whole lot of details left out, or figurative, we can only speculate. But I choose to speculate they are figurative. How do you speculate?

Is There One Creation Story or Two? (Part 3 of 3)

2010-03-27T10:32:00.022-05:00

Day 6 opens with the creation of “the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so” (Genesis 1:24). You’ll again note that each living thing was to reproduce after its kind, not evolve from one living thing into something else. Christian Darwinians take note.

Then came the creation of the male and female, formed in the image and likeness of God himself. Many feel this was the creation of Adam and Eve. But was it?

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:26-27).

Interestingly, the Hebrew word for man is ’adam (small a), while the word for Adam is ’Adam (large A—both minus the diacritical marks). ’adam (small a) means “ruddy, i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.)” (James Strong, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon Press, 1973.)

Although it’s true that ’adam (small a) could be referring to an individual, it is highly unlikely. The reason is twofold: 1) God didn’t initially say he was going to create the male and female, but man—’adam (small a); and 2) God then used the term ’adam (small a) in conjunction with both male and female. This would seem to indicate the usage for ’adam (small a) was meant as mankind, which was then defined as the male and female of the species.

My assertion is that the creation of the male and female isn’t referring to a physical one but a spiritual one—unless God only created one male and one female, which I don’t believe is the case.

I think it’s fair to say that most Christians believe each of us has a soul or a spirit self that is the life of the physical body. (For my purposes, the soul and spirit body or self are interchangeable.) Remove that soul from the body and you have a lifeless body, or in other words, death.

Extending this one step further, I believe the earth also has a soul. And why not? Does not the earth mourn? Cannot it be defiled by the inhabitants thereon?

“The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish. The earth also is defiled under the inhabitnts thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant” (Isaiah 24:4-5; see also Isaiah 33:9; Jeremiah 4:28).

If the earth were just dirt, rock and water, so to speak, could it then mourn and be defiled and not have a soul?

Some might explain it away as merely a poetic personification. If that’s what they want to believe, that’s fine. But as for me, for reasons I will get into in another article, I choose to believe the earth has a soul. I believe Genesis 1 was the account of the creation of the earth’s soul.

I also believe Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the spirits of all plant, animal and human life that were slated to come to mortal earth. In addition, I believe the physical creation of the earth mirrored the spiritual creation from Day 1 through Day 3. From there on, the physical creation appeared in a different order than the spiritual creation, as we shall see.

This may be hard to accept because of traditional belief, but there’s good evidence for it.

“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them” (Genesis 2:1 ; underscoring mine).

The question then may be asked: What exactly is a host?

The Hebrew denotes “a mass of persons, or figuratively a mass of things, usually reserved for use in regards to armies in wartime.” (ibid.)

I think we can safely rule out the “armies in wartime.” That leaves us with a mass of persons and things, such as flora and fauna—i.e., plant and animal life, as well as human life.

We must, therefore, conclude that all human beings, plant and animal life were created by the end of Day 6—their spirits, anyway. If these were physical creations, as we have been taught to believe, then all of modern mankind would have been created way back in Day 6. If this is so, then how were we able to be born again? With Nicodemus, we might ask:

“How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” (John 3:4).

We also know God rested on Day 7:

“And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made” (Genesis 2:2; underscore mine).

We’ve generally been taught this was the end of the physical creation, but I believe it was the end of the spiritual creation. I know many Christians believe our spirits are created the moment of conception or even at birth. Yet, if this were true, God’s work of spiritual creation was not finished at the end of Day 6. Nor will it end until the final person, plant or animal has been born into mortality. (What applies to one applies to all.) Therefore, if this were so, God could not have rested on Day 7.

There’s still more:

“These are the generations [i.e., history] of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [i.e., space of time] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew” (Genesis 2:4-5; underscoring mine).

How could God create “every plant in the field” and “every herb of the field” “before it was in the earth” and “before it grew”? Only if the creations of which he was speaking were formed as spirit entities.

Some view this as conflicting. To me, it reaffirms that Genesis 1 was, indeed, a spiritual creation.

Continuing with verse 5, we read: “for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth”. If there were no rain, there would be no plants. If there were no plants, their could be no life dependent upon such plants. This would seem to add support to Genesis 1 being a spiritual creation. But there’s wiggle room here.

Most Christians likely believe it never rained until the flood in Noah’s day, and this is due to the appearance of the first rainbow afterward. This may have some validity. However, there may have existed some atmospheric conditions we don’t know about before the flood that allowed people to live from 600 to 900 plus years. These conditions may have prevented a rainbow from appearing, even when it rained—if it rained. The massive rain of the flood could have washed out whatever was in the atmosphere that allowed for such longevity. We just don’t know. What we do know is that it hadn’t yet rained (Genesis 2:5) after all the plant life had been created (Genesis 1:12).

Continuing with verse 5, we read: “and there was not a man to till the ground.” Even though the male and female had been created in Genesis 1, yet there was no man actually on the physical earth at this time. However, before man was placed on the earth physically, the following happened:

“But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground” (Genesis 2:6).

Thus, God began preparing the physical earth for the habitat of man by making conditions ripe for the proliferation of plant life.

By the way, the Hebrew for mist denotes a fog. Whatever that referred to, it must have been a huge fog, heavy with water so that it watered the entire massive continent—i.e., “the whole face of the ground”.

From here on, I believe the spiritual and physical creations of the earth began to differ. I’m also guessing a good deal of time may have passed between this mist and the next great event: the creation of man.

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7).

Adam (large “A”) was placed somewhere in the midst of this vast continent. By then, the greenery was likely all around him. Surely some of it was edible, else he could not have survived . . . unless it was not necessary for him to eat in his pre-fallen condition.

Next, “God planted a garden eastward in Eden” (Genesis 2:8). We don’t know what kind of a garden it was. It could have been a flower garden, a vegetable garden, a Japanese-like garden, an orchard, or any and all combinations of gardens. It likely took some time to grow. God then placed Adam into the garden.

“And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden , and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. . . . and the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it” (Genesis 2:9,15).

Note, this is the second time it is mentioned that God placed Adam into the garden. I believe this was the real thing and the first mention (Genesis 2:8) was a preview. We know Moses used previews, as he next previewed the creation of woman.

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him” (Genesis 2:18).

However, before God created the woman, he formed “every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air” (Genesis 2:19). Then he brought them to Adam in some sort of naming ceremony, where Adam gave names to them all.

How he would even know what to call them, I would have to wonder. In modern science, they solve the problem by naming every new thing after themselves or someone or something that is meaningful to them. I imagine the naming process took quite awhile, so it was probably good the woman hadn’t yet been formed. But finally she was:

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:21-22).

Adam, apparently on a roll, continued his naming ceremony by calling the woman . . . well, woman.

To sum up, a quick reading of Genesis 1-2 might leave one a bit confused. To others, it is proof the Bible isn’t true because it seems to contradict itself. Still others may dismiss my ideas simply because they’re different from what they have been told all their lives. I have no problem with any of these views. It’s still a free country (for now, at least).

While there is much missing or held back in these two narratives, it seems clear enough to me that there were two creations—the first spiritual, as represented in Genesis 1, and the second physical, as represented in Genesis 2.

Whatever all this means to you, it is enough for me.

Is There One Creation Story or Two? (Part 2 of 3)

2010-03-18T00:14:00.053-05:00

Day 2 begins:

“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.” (Genesis 1:6-8).

At this point I’m assuming the earth had coalesced into a globe of its present size and shape. As Day 2 begins, the earth was surrounded by a cocoon of water of some sort. This is not unlike a babe being surrounded by a placenta of waters. Of course, the waters surrounding the earth may have been far more extensive than a cocoon. We have no way of knowing, but I like the symbology of the earth being wrapped in a womb of water. As to there being water in outer space, you might want to check out the article,
“Water in Space More Abundant than Expected”.

But what is a firmament? The Hebrew word suggests “an expanse” or “visible arch of the sky.” The Hebrew word for heaven suggests “the sky,” “perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move.” It also refers to “the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve”—basically, the sun and everything you can see in the night sky. Based on the Hebrew, it would appear the firmament is none other than the earth’s atmosphere. (See the NASA photo below.)

Earth’s atomosphere (a NASA photo)

Next, Day 3 arrives and things start picking up:

“And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas; and God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:9-10).

It appears when Day 3 began there was no dry land. This suggests the entire earth was covered with the water that had been gathered together. When the land appeared, the waters were gathered into one place. This would leave one massive landform, or else the waters would be divided as they are today.

If, indeed, the waters did cover the entire earth, how, then, did the land appear? I’ve got an idea which I shall combine with one theory of how we got our moon.

We know there’s a lot of space debris in the universe. We also know there are occasional collisions. (See NASA photo of Jupiter below.)

Jupiter swallowing up the comet Shoemaker-Levy fragments (a NASA photo)

It is well known the moon is full of craters, many huge. Even our own earth has had its share, most notably the famous Arizona crater. (See photo below.)

Arizona crater (a NASA JPL photo)

Picture this: A large planetoid-like object approaches the newly created earth at a high rate of speed. It strikes a glancing blow, sinking deep into the earth’s perhaps still malleable crust under the water. Of course, water flies for miles into the atmosphere and the planetoid “grabs” a piece of the still relatively soft earth, ripping it into outer space. Likely some of the planetoid breaks apart as well. The water may or may not have fallen back to earth. The natural result of this collision would be an on-rushing of water to fill the newly created basin which we now call the Pacific Ocean. (See artist’s conception below from a Harvard-Smithsonian press release.)

Artist’s conception of two planets colliding (Credit: David A. Aguilar, Harvard-Smithsonian CfA)

One problem you might see in this scenario is that the moon wasn’t made until Day 4. That is a good point. However, I’m not saying the moon was at this point created or made, only that the raw materials for it found its way into space.

Now, the question remains: Is there any empirical evidence in the earth that such an event did, in fact, occur? Actually, there is . . . or may be, according to how one interprets the data.

To get an idea of how this might have happened, check out this interactive ocean-bottom topographical map. One outstanding feature of the map of the Pacific Ocean is the long mountainous arc covering thousands of miles, located near the bottom. It’s what I would expect to see if a large chunk of land was ripped out of the earth. The arc represents the last earthly hold of the displaced earth before it finally broke away. You will notice a number of mountainous chains running generally in a northwest to southeast direction. This could easily be accounted for by a collision of a planetoid-like object coming from the northwest in the direction of the southeast where the land fully broke away.

Another ocean-bottom topographical map shows the northwest to southeast mountainous chains even clearer. However, it doesn’t show the long mountainous arc nearly as clear.

If you want to get an even closer look at how rugged it is at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, you might want to check out these maps. One would expect to see some ruggedness where a large chunk of earth had been ripped away.

I would suggest this new landform remained one massive continent until the days of Peleg, when it was divided. (See Genesis 10:25.) We have no proof that it was otherwise. Thus, we can assume that when looking at these ocean-bottom maps, that at least Australia was not in its current location. You can see on the UCSD map how Australia may have gravitated from the east side of India by observing the striations on both its north and south sides. Judging by the striations, one could conclude Antarctica might have traveled south from the massive continent.

Now let us turn to the Atlantic Ocean to solidify the idea of there being one massive continent. In either of the two ocean-bottom topographic maps you will see what is called the mid-Atlantic ridge in the near dead center of that ocean. You will see east-west striations in both maps caused, I believe, by the separation of the Americas to the west and Europe and Africa to the east. That must have been some earthquake!

You can easily see how the mid-Atlantic ridge parallels the continents on either side. Other maps show how the giant continent might have looked, although there is no consensus as to the final product. None of the maps I’ve seen are configured the way I would guess, but then I’m not an expert on tectonic plate movements. A simple Google map search on “supercontinent” will give you a number of different looks.

The other, much simpler theory of how land came to be can be explained by one or more global earthquakes, in which the entire massive continent raised up out of the waters. That could happen, no question, but it wouldn’t account for the moon. So, I like the collision scenario better because I can observe information at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean which not only accounts for the land rising, as it were, but also for the moon.

Continuing with Day 3:

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:11-12).

The first question that may be asked is: Where did all this flora come from? Of course, no one knows for sure, but there aren’t too many natural options available. God may have spoken a word, figuratively snapped his fingers, then Poof! All the flora magically appeared. I know it sounds a bit strange to some of us, but many people believe exactly this, for that’s basically the way it is presented in Genesis. Some believers are very literal when it comes to the Bible; hence, the six 24-hour day creation periods.

On the other hand, God may have actually planted seeds—lots of seeds. I’m sure some people can’t see God doing such a mundane task, but the seeds had to get there somehow. Of course, he may have had a lot of help. (More on that idea in the next subject for discussion.) He certainly had a lot of time, time not being a part of his existence.

However, the important thing to remember is the flora produced seeds of its own kind. One species of grass didn’t evolve into something else, such as a fruit tree. So, if you’re a Christian and a Darwinian (there are some), you might want to rethink that. Either God is God or Darwin is god. They both can’t be right. And I don’t buy into the “intelligent design Darwinism,” either, where God orchestrated physical evolution. God formed man in his own image and likeness, not in the image and likeness of a monkey-man, or anything else. At least that’s what the Bible says . . . and that’s good enough for me. And I think this equally applies to everything else God placed on earth.

The next question that may be asked is: How did all these plants grow without the light of the sun which wasn’t made until Day 4? And that’s a good question. To answer that, let us turn to Revelation 21. John had just finished describing the great cubed city, “the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God” (verse 10). In verse 23 he says:

“And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb of God is the light thereof.”

Plain and simple, the flora didn’t need the light of the sun. We might remember that both Deuteronomy 4:24 and Hebrews 12:29 describe God as a consuming fire. Both the Hebrew and the Greek words for fire mean literally and figuratively just that—fire! That’s a vision of God we don't often hear about.

Now let us introduce time to the earth as we take a look at Day 4.

“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And god set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:14-18).

Remember back in Day 1: “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night” (verse 5). This is the second time God divided the light from the dark. So, what gives?

Whatever the case, these verses seem to indicate the earth was formed before the sun, moon and stars, if taken literally. Nevertheless, in Day 1, according to my fanciful ideas, God infused what may have been dark matter with light, thus separating it from its surrounding darkness. In Day 4, God placed the earth in its present position. He then formed the moon from the disparate pieces surrounding the earth . . . and voila! We have a real day and night, based presumably on a 24-hour rotation. Of course, we have no real way of knowing this. It could have just as easily been a year-long rotation. We simply don’t know.

If we take the Bible literally, the earth was created first, then the sun, moon and stars. I’ll buy the idea of the moon, but after looking around the universe through the eyes of Hubble and other telescopes, I have a hard time swallowing the rest of it.

Still, the question may be asked: Why couldn’t all this have been accomplished right here in our own solar system? Mainly because of the size of a typical nebula, continuing with that idea.

Take, for example, the Crab Nebula, some 6,500 light-years away. (See photo below). The Hubble site says it’s 6 by 12 light-years in dimension.

Hubblesite.org

Astronomers call the nebula the “expanding remnant of a star’s supernova explosion.” Oddly, it has a central neutron star, even after the explosion, which the site says is the source of the internal bluish glow. I find it strange that a star should explode, then leave behind another kind of a star. I don’t believe anyone has ever actually seen this happen live, so whatever they say in regards to exploding stars can be viewed as suspect, in my opinion.

For fun, you might want to check out the really huge, scrollable version of the Crab Nebula.

A light-year is the distance light travels in one year at 186,000 miles per second, or about 5,878,625,373,184 miles. This is equivalent to about 63,241.077 astronomical units, which is defined as the average distance between the earth and the sun. In other words, the Crab Nebula is about 63,241+ times the distance between the earth and the sun. See “How far is a light-year? In miles and kilometers.”.

This would make the Crab Nebula much larger than our entire solar system. According to the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, the distance from the sun to Pluto is 5½ light-hours! That means the approximate width of the solar system is 11 light-hours! I’m not even going to attempt the math to figure out how many times larger the Crab Nebula is than our entire solar system.

Nevertheless, if it were true the earth was created from a nebula (I’m not saying it was, only offering an alternative theory), how could such a humongous bit of gases and/or space dust be condensed into something as small as our earth? In reality, there’s no way we can possibly know. Nevertheless, we might ask a similar question of our astronomer friends: How could the (pre-atom) elemental material of billions of galaxies we know exist (likely many billions more), each containing perhaps billions of stars, fit into a space of only a few millimeters across, just prior to the so-called Big Bang? And how did all this material get there? And who lit the match to make them explode, given that they likely existed in this state forever? And where was God in all this? (I know, I know. Astronomers like to keep God out of this universe of theirs.)

Next to this bit of what I consider nonsense, my theory starts to sound a little more plausible, if not still fantastic. I’ll leave it at that.

So, if the earth were created from a nebula, it would have to be created somewhere else. Why couldn’t God just have created the earth in our own solar system—sans nebula?

I guess he could have, but then it wouldn’t have fit into the Genesis 1 account of the creation. Even science at its worst couldn’t come up with the idea of the solar system and all the stars having been created after the earth was created. There’s no good sense in it.

Day 4 continues:

“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and the fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind: and God saqw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth” (Genesis 1:20-22).

Like the flora, we find all these creatures were to multiply and fill the earth in their various milieus—after their own kind, not evolving from one species into another. God has so spoken.

Is There One Creation Story or Two? (Part 1 of 3)

2010-03-07T23:57:00.020-06:00

It has long been an established “fact” that Genesis 1 is the chronology of the physical creation of the earth. But is it really?

At first glance, it would certainly seem so. Everything appears to follow a certain logical order leading up to the creation of the male and female in verses 26-28. Yet, there are other indications that there may be more than meets the casual eye on this subject.

Whatever the case may be, there is so little information in the creation story as to leave one with many more questions than answers. And perhaps it was intended to be so. Either that, or we have lost a great deal of information over the ages through multitudes of translations and apparent omissions.

Remember also: This was Moses’ version of what he saw. I’m sure he was quite speechless after seeing all this. Think of the time Moses lived in. I would have to wonder if he even had the vocabulary to verbalize what he saw. Hence, we have this really short version in our Bibles.

Personally, I don’t believe God ever intended Genesis 1 to be a full account of the creation of heaven and earth. If he did, then why don’t we have it?

Have you ever wondered what the purpose was of giving us such an abbreviated account of the creation of our heaven and earth? I can only speculate, of course, not being God, but perhaps he only wanted us to know these two things: 1) that he, God, created our earth and its heaven; and 2) that he, our Father in heaven, created it for us to live on. We can forget about Darwinism.

So, how long did the creation take? Only God knows for sure. However, that doesn’t stop rampant speculation.

There are three basic theories regarding how long it took to create the earth. The first, and most unlikely, in my opinion, is the idea that it took six twenty-four hour modern days to accomplish this mammoth feat. I’m guessing—only guessing—that those who believe this think that God just spoke a word, and everything came together, just as it intimates in Genesis 1—all in a snap of his fingers, so to speak.

The main problem with this idea is that it is scientifically unsound. There is nothing visible in the universe that would support such a rapid creation . . . of any kind! If there were, surely our powerful telescopes would have picked something up. Besides, it doesn’t make sense: For in the first three Days there was no measurement of time, as time hadn’t yet entered the picture.

Other theorists use 2 Peter 3:8 as the basis for their claims: that a day of the Lord is one thousand years to man. Therefore, six “Days” of the Lord equals six thousand years for the creation.

I’ve been reading a book, “In the Beginning,” by Walt Brown, Ph.D., a scientific look at the creation and the flood of Noah. In it, he shows actual scientific evidence supporting the idea that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Not being a scientist, I cannot argue any of his points, but they seem to have some validity, so far as I have been able to tell. Even so, cosmic changes don’t appear to happen that fast.

Others cling wholly to traditional science, stating the earth couldn’t have self-evolved in anything less than several billion years. Of course, science most generally leaves out the idea of a God-creator, which, in my mind, puts them out to pasture. However, I will say that pure science goes hand in hand with pure religion. I view them as two sides of the same coin when they are in harmony.

One of the problems science these days is that it is too politicized and driven by government grant money. Whenever a scientist starts leaning toward, say, the theory of intelligent design, he is ostracized, is rejected by all professional scientific journals, and will likely lose his grant money. Our leaders, after all, have established a de facto atheistic, humanist government (thus breaking the First Amendment with regard to establishing a religion) and doesn’t want anything to do with God.

Before delving into “In the Beginning,” I was leaning closer to the last theory than to the first two. After all, time means nothing to God, for in the realm where God dwells there is no time. In fact, sometime after the Book of Revelation’s seventh seal is opened, “there should be time no longer” (Revelation 10:6). So, keeping this in mind, we shall be living in God’s no-time time even before the return of Jesus.

If we look around, we can observe order in the universe, from great groups of galaxies all the way down to planet earth. Look even further down into microscopic levels and it's even more orderly. I believe God works in such an orderly fashion using natural laws, his laws. Mankind has discovered some of these laws, however rudimentary.

While the Hebrew word for day indicates the period of time from sunrise to sunset or from one sunset to the next, it also can mean a space of time. (Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1973.) So, from my current point of view, a day equals an undefined space or period of time.

When we look into the heavens through the eyes of the world’s most powerful telescopes, one rarely sees anything resembling speed. Looking at Hubble photo of the V838 Monocerotis red super giant star below, one sees what, in cosmic time, a lightning-speed event. What appears to be an exploding star is actually a rare outburst of light. This sequence took nine months to accomplish, even at the speed of light. The star, which never changed size, eventually returned to normalcy. And this light show didn’t involve any act of creation, however spectacular it might have been, so far as can be determined.

Source: Hubblesite.org

So, what I’m looking at are six spaces or periods of time, not 168 hours, although I'm thinking Brown is leaning toward the six-thousand-year period. On the other hand, I don’t believe these six periods of time were necessarily equal, whatever they were. Some days may have lasted much longer than other days, depending on what was being accomplished during each phase of the creation story.

When we look at the events surrounding the six days of creation, we scarcely can imagine what actually took place. So, what I’d like to do is examine the creation story as written, day by day, and plug in some ideas to ponder.

“In the beginning” has often been interpreted as “In the beginning of the entire universe.” I don’t view it that way, although Brown seems to be leaning toward a much newer universe than the rest of science.

Since this story is about the creation of this earth and this heaven, I view “In the beginning” as the beginning of this specific creation. I like to think God’s entire work didn’t begin and end with the creation of this earth and its heaven. All one has to do is look up into the night sky and wonder at all the stars, knowing most all of them are part of this vast galaxy—only one of billions—that we live in.

So, let us take a closer look at how I imagine certain things were done in the first few Days of creation.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:1-2).

Basically, in the beginning stages of the earth’s history, it had no shape; that is, it was formless. It didn’t look anything like an earth. And it was dark throughout. In other words, the basic elements of its formation were there but were not in any recognizable form. Perhaps in its formative stage the earth consisted of that mysterious substance called dark matter.

“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light, And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness” (Genesis 1:3-4).

What this means no one really knows. The only thing we do know is that this light was not our sun, which didn’t enter into the picture until Day 4. I like to think these en-light-ened particles may have existed as a nebula (see Hubble photo of a section of the Orion nebula below). And why not?

Source: Hubblesite.org

I know astronomers would be falling all over themselves, were they even to take notice of my little blog, to point out the error of my ways. They insist these nebulae are the aftermath of dying or exploding stars, but they are only guessing. So far as I have been able to determine, astronomers have never actually witnessed the entire process of a dying or exploding star evolving into a nebula. The V838 star above wasn’t an explosion, but a "massive outlay of light," according to the Hubble website, which isn’t the same thing. In reality, the only difference (okay, not the only difference) between astronomers and myself are the initials behind their names. I can guess as well as they.

Astronomers tend to think that much of the universe exists in an exploding, dying sort of arrangement. I like to think of it as a God-evolving (not Darwinian) sort of an affair. Therefore, I like to think the next stage in the development of the earth is as pictured below—a central star gathering in the en-light-ened elements into something more resembling the shape of the earth, such as is pictured below with the planetary nebula, Helix.

Source: Hubblesite.org

However, astronomers still maintain this is the aftermath of an exploding star. Apparently, they haven’t bothered looking closely enough. If you look at the close-up of the Helix nebula below, you will see the comet-like orbs moving towards the central star. An even closer look at these comet-like orbs coming from the other side follows:

Source: Hubblesite.org

Source: Hubblesite.org

While verse 4 says God divided the light from the dark, he may have been referring to this gathering process as illustrated in the above photos of the Helix nebula.

Of course, astronomers insist that planetary nebulae aren’t planets at all, but, again, remnants of exploding stars. However, with exploding stars, one would expect the matter to be going away from the central star, which, I might add, mysteriously remains after exploding. Yet, we clearly see the reverse to be true, indicating a pulling toward rather than a pushing away of matter from that central star.

The curious thing about Day 1 is that God called the light day and the dark night. Yet, the sun and moon weren’t even mentioned until Day 4, and then only by implication.

Is There a Mother in Heaven? (Part 3 of 3)

2010-03-01T19:58:00.009-06:00

If there were no Mother in heaven, then God, the Father, would be forever single. Of course, this is pretty much how Christianity views him anyway.

But if God were forever single, then why would he care if his children were married or not? What purpose could it possibly serve?

If man were modeled after God, and the scriptures tell us he was, then why would he require his children to do something he himself was unwilling to do—i.e., be married?

Remember, in the Lord’s Prayer Jesus addressed the Father: “Thy kingdom come [i.e., Thy kingdom has come, meaning through Christ]. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).

Does this sound familiar? It should. It serves as the basis for: As in heaven, so on earth; as on earth, so in heaven.

If there were no marriage in heaven, then why would God insist there be marriage on earth? It simply makes no sense.

Let us remember what Jesus said:

“And he answered and said unto them [i.e., Pharisees] Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? [This is the same thing Adam told God when he found himself suddenly with a wife—Genesis 2:24.] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder [i.e., divide or separate]” (Matthew 19:4-6).

Thus we see that not only did God bring the man and the woman together, he joined them together. Remember the initial command the male and female were given on the sixth day?

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish [i.e., fill] the earth”(Genesis 1:28).

It must be noted this command was given before Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden—even before the garden was created! And surely that command extended to them once they were placed in the garden. And just as surely, Adam and Eve could have been fruitful, multiplied and filled the earth without being married or joined together.

Certainly, much of the world views marriage, or the lack of it, in this latter light. Yet the Bible is full of scriptures concerned with marriage and its various aspects in both the Old and New Testaments.

The only solution I can see that makes any sense is this: Since God ordained marriage on earth, he must have followed a pattern already existing in heaven. Where else would he get the idea from? As in heaven, so on earth; as on earth, so in heaven.

Remember what Jesus said? God did the joining. Let no man put it asunder. Man cannot break what God has joined together. That sounds pretty forever to me.

Yet, how easy we break those marriage vows here on earth. Divorce is rampant, even among professed Christians.

Originally there was no divorce, but as Jesus said in Matthew 19:8, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so”.

This means that God originally, and still does, intend marriage to last forever. And here’s something else to remember:

“I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him” (Ecclesiastes 3:14).

So there you have it! How could it be otherwise? Either God married Adam and Eve or he didn’t. If he didn’t, then the scriptures are lying to us. If he did, then he married them to be together forever. There was no “till death do you part” in this first marriage, a pattern we were all apparently supposed to emulate.

To say “Till death do you part” to a newly married couple suggests God is not in the marriage, for “whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever.” Any way you look at it, “Till death do you part” is not forever. To repeat: “Till death do you part” is not forever, and forever is how God does things, at least according to Ecclesiastes 3:14.

Do you remember the power Jesus gave to his chosen disciples?

“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 18:18).

He might as well have said, “Whatsoever ye shall join together in marriage on earth shall be joined together in marriage in heaven . . . forever bound and sealed!”

>So, if one of the twelve apostles married a man and a woman in the days of Jesus or thereafter, they were bound and sealed together on earth and in heaven . . . forever!

Wow! No “till death do you part”—the same as in the first marriage!

Think about it. How would you rather have your marriage: Forever in heaven or “till death do you part”? That power existed in the original church and it came straight from Christ himself.

Is this binding power the apostles were given the same power that God used to join Adam and Eve together forever? While the wording is slightly different, I believe it is the same power. I certainly don’t see anything to suggest it isn’t.

This idea of forever marriage speaks deeply of the importance of marriage in eternity. This would suggest that marriage is apparently more than a mere temporary arrangement—in other words, not “Till death do you part,” which is a temporary arrangement.

The question can then be asked: If God would have his children be married—i.e., not just married, but married forever—then what about God himself? Would it be of any less importance to him? Modern thinking would have us believe so.

What purpose would it serve God, if all his children had forever spouses and he did not? His children would then be in possession of something that he himself did not possess! Pretty unthinkable, I would imagine.

This leads us to the question that invariably arises when discussing this issue: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of god in heaven” (Matthew 22:30).

In context, Jesus was answering a trick question put forth by the Sadducees regarding the Hebrew practice of a widow who’s husband died without issue. She would first go to the oldest brother to wife. Should she then have a child, that child would belong to the first husband in order to carry on his name. (See Deuteronomy 25:5-10.) In this case, she allegedly went from brother to brother six times after the death of her first husband, having children by none of them.

The question put to Christ was: “Therefore in the resurrection [which the Sadducees didn’t believe in] whose wife shall she be of the seven? For they all had her” (Matthew 22:28). (I can almost see them smirking and rolling their eyes at each other—wink, wink. “Ha! Ha! We got him.”)

I will admit that Jesus’ answer, relative to the text, seems a bit baffling. Yet, Jesus states there is no marriage given in heaven. He does not state there is no marriage existing in heaven. By this, one can only assume that perhaps marriage is an earthly ordinance, such as baptism. Anything beyond this adds even more speculation to the picture, not that speculation is ever frowned on in here.

Here is an important question to consider: Why not forever marriage in heaven? Why does it seem so offensive to many?

Think about it. We make close, intimate ties on earth with our spouses—okay, some of us do. Nevertheless, does it make sense that God would take two intimate spouses, then tear them apart to live singly for eternity just because they died? That would be akin to some kind of hell, I would think—a hell in heaven!
Michael Martin Murphy put it this way, “And if love never lasts forever, tell me what’s forever for?>” Or to put it another way, “And if marriage doesn’t lasts forever, what’s marriage for?”

Didn’t Jesus tell us to love our neighbors as ourselves? For what purpose? Just to have that love disappear when we die and go to heaven? Are we to lose all sensibilities towards our spouses, children and friends when we die and go to heaven? Modern thinking would have us believe so, although I don’t believe most Christians in the trench, so to speak, believe this is true.

If this were true, heaven would be a very lonely and hellish place. Remember, heaven is for eternity! And so are our emotions!

What better way to preserve these Godly feelings for one another than to continue the institution of marriage and family that God created on earth? Of course, in my view, the pattern God used to establish marriage on earth was taken from heaven itself, starting with he himself and our Mother in heaven.

In spite of all that has been said, the idea of a Mother in heaven is still conjecture, so far as the Bible is concerned. Yet, there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that there is, indeed, a heavenly Mother.

The question may then be asked: If there is a Mother in heaven, why don’t we hear about her? And it’s a good question.

Perhaps it’s because it’s not necessary for our salvation and eternal life, which is in Jesus Christ. Perhaps it is to spare her from the filthy mouths of vulgar people who routinely use the name of God and his Christ at the ends of their profane tongues.

And so there you have it. And regardless of what has been presented here, the reader still must decide for him- or herself if having a Mother in heaven is something he or she can wrap their minds and hearts around.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter. As one reader suggested, we will find out sooner or later when this life is over and we have all gone to heaven . . . assuming that all will go to heaven.

Is There a Mother in Heaven? (Part 2 of 3)

2010-02-27T00:41:00.011-06:00

I think of the earth and all its inhabitants as a sort of microcosm of heaven—that is, the heaven where I believe we all came from. Of course, heaven is on a much higher plane than earth, yet who’s to say what the earth was patterned after? It might as well be patterned after heaven as any other place.

What we do know is the pattern whereby man and woman were created.

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . .

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:26-27).

Wherever we came from, it would seem that the patterns for creating earthly man and woman resided in heaven for that is where God resides.

By the way, the Hebrew word for image is tselem, according to Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, 1973). According to Strong, it is taken from an unused root meaning “to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol.”

Personally, I don’t think God created man as an idol or even as an illusion or shade. Yet, I can see God creating man as a shadow of himself, even resembling him in appearance.

I also believe woman was created as a shadow of someone, even resembling that personage. Who better to fill the bill than a heavenly Mother?

Surely God, the Father, an apparent male, could not fashion such a female after his own image or likeness. Let’s be reasonable.

Unless our God, our Father in heaven, is something very different than what we have been led to believe as Christians, I find it very difficult to even imagine him patterning both a male and female after his own singular personage. If you can, well . . . you’re welcome to believe as you will. For me, it is nonsense—no offense intended.

Looking a little further, we find the Hebrew word for likeness is d^emûwth, which comes from a primitive root meaning “to compare; by implication to resemble, liken, consider”. As demûwth it means, “resemblance; concretely model, shape; adverbally like” (Strong, ibid.).

Thus we can see that God, indeed, modeled man after himself. In short, the man looked like God in form. And the woman looked like . . . well . . . like whomever she was modeled after. Again, the only personage I can imagine who could possibly fill this role is a Mother in heaven.

And why not? Just because the subject has been ignored, or we have been told differently all these centuries does not mean there is no Mother in heaven. And just because we cannot quote chapter and verse does not negate the idea. If the woman was not modeled after a Mother in heaven, then whom was she modeled after?

If the man looked like God in form and was modeled after his own self, to be a shadow of that self, then surely the reverse is also true: God, in form, looks like the man he created—in his own image and likeness. Stephen’s pre-death experience would certainly lend credence to this idea (see Acts 7:55-56). The same may be implied in the relationship between our Mother in heaven and the woman.

Interestingly, the same language used in Genesis 1:26-27 was used again in Genesis 5:1-3:

“This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth”.

And yes, the Hebrew words for image and likeness here are the same as in Genesis 1:26-27. So, by this we can see that Seth was a perfect model or reflection of his father in form, and, by this, it is not a stretch to see that man, in form, was a perfect model or reflection of God, the Father. The wording is identical. The intention cannot be made more clear. Okay, maybe it could be made more clear, but in this instance it should be clear enough.

I also like the way “The Message” renders Genesis 1:26: “Let us make human beings in our image, make them reflecting our nature.”

This is even more succinct than in the King James Version. Man not only looks like God because he was modeled after him, but he has been created to reflect the very nature of God. True, man is only a reflection or shadow of that nature, an imperfect one, to be sure.

God’s creation of man and woman is perfect, but man and woman’s earthly nature is imperfect. But that’s why we have God’s word: to help us perfect that reflection or shadow, that we might become perfect in Jesus Christ.

“Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).

“[Christ] Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus” (Colossians 1:28).

Finally, I cannot believe that God, the Father, could be both male and female, that both could be created in his likeness and image. To me, this goes beyond all good sense and reason. And God does use the pronoun “us” in his proclamation of intended and actual creation.

In short, I believe in a God of order who works by natural laws—eternal laws! Look around you. His creations speak—no, shout!—of order. And to create a female out of a male does not speak to me of order or of any natural law.

Also, if you look at the fact that man and woman are inherently different in form and in nature, you should be able to see they both could not be modeled after the same personage.

They do not look alike. They do not think alike (at least on earth). They do not act alike (at least on earth). They have different expectations (at least on earth). The woman is also instinctively more spiritual than the man, as a general rule (at least on earth). On and on we could go regarding the differences between the nature of man and woman (at least on earth).

However, when all is said and done, those who do not accept the idea of a Mother in heaven are left to ponder the question: “Whom did God model the woman after, if not a Mother in heaven?”

While none of this proves there is a Mother in heaven, neither can one say there is not a heavenly Mother by any other proof.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

As far as the Adam’s rib story goes, I believe that’s all it is—a story. I believe it to be symbolic in nature, although as to what end, I must confess I don’t know. Nevertheless, I guess it could happen the way it was portrayed.

According to news reports in 2008, a Russian scientist, Dr. Peter Gariaev, shone a gentle laser beam through a developing salamander embryo and redirected it into a developing frog embryo. This caused the frog embryo’s DNA to completely re-code itself with the instructions to build a healthy adult salamander! —even though the two embryos were in hermetically sealed containers and only the light was allowed to pass through. However, while changing the form, the article said nothing about changing the sex of the form.

Even if this is truly how God created the woman, by taking a rib out of Adam, that does not necessarily mean there is no Mother in heaven. God would still need someone to model the woman after.

Nevertheless, I chose to believe that God works by order and not by experimentation, as this scientist was doing. As Matthew 5:48 points out, God is perfect, meaning whole and complete, according to the Greek. What need has he for experimentation and genetic engineering?

Is There a Mother in Heaven? (Part 1 of 3)

2010-02-24T21:05:00.007-06:00

While the subject of this series of articles is not necessary for our salvation, it is nevertheless an intriguing one and worthy of our attention. However, I don’t imagine it’s a subject that is discussed much in normal Christian circles.

But I could be wrong.
Whatever the case may be, that is what we do here—discuss the possible and even the improbable, if it can be shown there is some Biblical precedent or even a hint of a reference for it.

I’d like to start off by asking what may seem to be a couple of inane questions, but I assure you, I am quite serious. First: When was there ever a father without there being a corresponding mother? Second: When was there ever a son without there being both a father and a mother?

Perhaps you can see where I’m going with this. And why not? As in heaven, so on earth; as on earth, so in heaven. That’s the theory, anyway.

Traditional Christianity has given us both a Father and a Son . . . but no Mother. Frankly, so has the Bible. Or has it? Even if it doesn’t give us a Mother, does that negate the possibility that there might be a corresponding Mother in heaven? I think not.

I know that among many Christians one of the prevailing beliefs is that the Bible contains all the revealed word of God. In other words, if it’s not in the Bible, God has not revealed it. Mind you, the Bible doesn’t say this, but it is what is often perceived among believers.

With this idea in mind, we must remember there are many Biblical verses referencing what appear to be other books of scripture, but ones that are not included in our present-day Bibles . . . ones many, if not most, have even heard of. There are also doctrines in the Bible that are referenced but not explained. And then there is the Apocrypha which some believe to be the word of God and some do not. Plus, there’s even one book that is included in the Bible that maybe ought not to have been included—The Song of Solomon. (From what I have been told, the English version has been substantially toned down from the Hebrew.)

But back to the point: Whether or not the Bible has ever mentioned a Mother in heaven is not the real issue here. The issue is whether or not I can find even some hints or clues of a Mother in heaven in the Bible. So, we just might be reading a little bit between the lines to find some of these hints and clues—a practice not uncommon among some Biblical scholars and preachers.

However, before we tackle the few scriptures that could open that door of possibilities, let us consider how having a heavenly Mother might impact what we know about God.

One. It would add to the concept we now have of God, which isn’t much to begin with. That is, we really don’t know an awful lot about God from the scriptures. Well, that’s not entirely true. We do, or should know a lot about him. We just don’t know what he did before and after he created our earth and heavens and what he is doing now.

What we do know is this—that he, at least sometimes, sits on his throne. When he does, we know he is surrounded by numberless concourses of angels, who sing praises to him, apparently without ceasing. Aside from an occasional appearance (for example, to Stephen as he was being stoned—see Acts 7:55-56), we really know next to nothing about what he does or what his ultimate purposes are. We only know that he has turned over all matters earthly to his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

We also know that Jesus called him, Father, or Abba Father (which would be the same as saying Father Father). Jesus told us to pray to the Father. So, from these things, we know that God is a personal God, that he hears and, presumably, answers prayers.

Two. Knowing there is a Mother in heaven would comfort me in knowing our heavenly Father would have something to do other than sit on his throne receiving all this continual praise and adoration. Having a heavenly Mother would also add to the Father’s “personal-ness,” in my opinion. It would also comfort me to know that he really knows what it’s like to have personal relationships, other than through the act of delegating his power, authority and glory to his Son.

Now, if I were God (we won’t even go there), it would be hard to imagine having nothing to do for the eternities but sit on a throne (even if it were a soft one) receiving praises and adoration . . . continually . . . forever! Perhaps . . . maybe for an hour . . . at most. I would have to be able to do something or I would go crazy.

I believe God is an active God, and not one who just lolls around, soaking up praise and adoration. I just don’t know what it is he does and the scriptures are no help there.

I realize I’m looking at this entirely from an earthly vantage point, but that’s because I’m earthly. To me, having a Godly wife in heaven would make God’s work so much more expansive and personal than I would have otherwise been able to imagine.

Three. To me, our having a heavenly Mother would make more sense than not having one. The Bible tells us we are the sons and daughters of our heavenly Father. Again, when was there ever a son or a daughter without there being both a father and a mother? Or, in this case, a Father and a Mother?

To me, a father, having children without the children having a mother seems a bit, shall we say . . . ludicrous? As in heaven, so on earth. As on earth, so in heaven.

The idea of there being a Father, Mother and children in heaven opens the doors to all sorts of possibilities. Of course, with billions of children, we can’t all sit around the fireplace at one time with our heavenly Father and Mother. Even so, it’s intriguing to think about the possibilities; at least it is to me.

All this talk about a heavenly Mother is merely conjecture, of course. Nevertheless, I try to keep my conjectures within the realm of possibilities, rather than in mere flights of fantasy, although I’m sure some reading this may conclude that I’m engaging in more of the latter than the former. But that’s okay; I can deal with that.

On Being a Biblical Apologist

2010-02-22T10:46:00.006-06:00

For those not familiar with the concept of an apologist, I will say a few words. The word apologist is derived from the Greek apologia, meaning, “a speaking in defense” (Webster’s NewWorld Dictionary, Second Concise Edition, 1982). Specifically, it refers to “a person who writes or speaks in defense or justification of a doctrine, faith, action, etc.” (ibid.).

However, the concept most of us are familiar with is found in the second definition of the word apology: “an acknowledgment of some fault, wrong, etc., with an expression of regret” (ibid.). This is not what this blog is all about. (By the way, the first definition of the word apology is essentially the same as that of apologist, so it definitely has the longer history.)

“The Biblical Apologist” has been created for the defense of Biblical doctrines and ideas suggested or hinted at by the Bible that are not normally discussed from behind the pulpit. They are not necessary for one’s salvation but are still of interest because they are, after all, from the Bible.

Of course, the ideas presented here are my own opinions and are not to be construed as factual. Still, I try to present a case logically and sensibly for your consideration.

I don’t claim to be infallible or even an expert on the Bible. There are myriads of people who are more conversant than I on any given doctrine or historical subject. Yet, I have this insatiable appetite for digging out the unusual, those things not often discussed but sometimes wondered about.

Of necessity, these writings are long and most of them are broken into two or three parts. Hopefully, they will be interesting enough to keep the reader’s attention from wandering. My desire is that you will find them as alluring (in a good way) and compelling as I have in writing them.

You’re welcome to make comments, although I do think you need to have a Google Account to do so. But don’t let that stop you. One word of warning, however: Nothing inappropriate, inflammatory or self-promoting will be published. I only request comments to be on subject and G-Rated—that is, appropriate for all ages. Thank you.

Please feel welcome to travel with me into the many mysteries of the Bible.