Did you know?

Disclosure: I started this post a year ago and didn't publish the draft, but it has some good points, which could be further flushed out. I don't really want to spend any more time on it at this point, but I'm going to publish what I have...

Our system of government was founded on the bible. The check and balance system, with its three components: the judicial, legislative, and executive, comes straight out of Isaiah 33:22 "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; it is he who will save us."

A free economy, such as we have can only flourish if the people are of high moral character. As Benjamin Franklin put it, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~ April 17, 1787. So, as the basis for our economy lies in moral behavior, moral behavior has its foundations in the bible. What has the atheist to pull morality from? And if from himself, and each man pulls together his own form of morality, who is to say whose morality is more correct? Thus each man will do what is best for himself, dragging down a free economy because each man is trying to take what he has not earned. 

Americans have learned that they can loot the piggy bank to pad their pockets and it is leading to the failure of government. Ben Franklin could see this eventuality from the country's creation, as he states, "I've lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing Proofs I see of this Truth - That God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it. I firmly believe this, - and I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages." 

Our government was not set up so that a non-Christian leadership could be at the helm. When everyone is spending money on their own little pet projects, and no one is putting any money back into the system, it is no wonder that our nation is bankrupt. Morality in government flew out the door as early as the 1850s and the continued bad decisions of generations have finally caught up with us. There is no one particular president to blame, but rather a slow erosion of our nation's morality which has lead to our current debacle. 

The big problem is, without a foundation, such as the bible, the state has nowhere from which to pull its basis of good and evil, and a state with no moral compass is a very dangerous thing. 1 Peter 2: 16-17 tells us, "Submit to every human institution because of the Lord, whether to the Emperor as the supreme authority, or to governors as those sent out by him to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good." When the state is not representing good and evil for what they truly are then how can we expect true justice? I think the truth is this, we will never experience true justice on this earth because God does not want us to be satisfied here. He has given us a picture of true justice, and we will have this in heaven, but for the time being it is our duty to submit to the ruling authorities unless they explicitly break God's laws. In this case it becomes our duty to abstain from sin and endure the consequences that our God allows. (Reference Daniel 6).

More should be said here, but I'm not going to spend the time to work through this topic further right now :)

Genesis 3: How the Devil Deceives

The devil is slick and cunning. He is very good at deception; even better than you or I can imagine. Look to his first deception in the garden of Eden. Genesis 3:1-3 "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.''" The serpent twists God's word. Not too much, just enough to provide some doubt in the woman's mind. Just enough that he can get a conversation going. For God had given permission to eat from every tree in the garden, with an exclusion only for the consumption of fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:16-17, "And the Lord God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.'”

In engaging the serpent Eve left herself open to manipulation. Had she ignored the serpent, knowing that what he had stated was false, she could have avoided sin. However, she chose to engage the enemy, and in doing so she let herself fall into temptation. Not only did the temptation overcome her, but in trying to argue with the devil she added to God's command. God never told Adam and Eve that they could not touch the tree, only that they could not eat of it. Here, I think there is a question as to where the law was changed. It may have been told to Eve by Adam that the tree should not even be touched, or she may have added this herself. Regardless, God has warned against changing His word in any form because it leads to changes in its meaning (adding- Proverbs 30:6 or subtracting- Revelation 22:19 [yes, this is specific to Revelations]). With this thought I think it very prudent to study the Word of God for oneself and to practice memorizing scripture as well. It is much easier to realize you are being manipulated when you have the Word well memorized.

This is not the only time the Devil exploits God's Word to try to tempt. In fact He uses this tactic on Jesus himself (I guess he didn't realize that Jesus is The Word- John 1:14). In Matthew 4:6 the devil argues, “'If you are the Son of God,' he said, 'throw yourself down. For it is written: '‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’'" However, Jesus is capable of arguing the devil using scripture. I mean, come on He's the Creator Himself. Matthew 4:7, "Jesus answered him, 'It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.''” 

So theoretically, one could engage in a debate with the devil without succumbing to sin, but a thorough understanding of the scriptures would be imperative. Not only would it be important to understand the text's historical context, but it is equally important to understand how they fit into the entire biblical context. I think this is hard to do, especially early in our earthly life. It takes hours of diligent study and discipleship to gain understanding that can withstand the attacks of the devil who has had thousands of years to prepare his arguments.

Therefore, be careful when engaging someone in a scriptural debate. It is not wrong to debate scripture to gain a more thorough understanding of those scriptures. However, see that God's words are not twisted as to allow His message to be misconstrued. The devil is cunning and will trip you up where he can. If you hear something that challenges a belief, study it out. It's worth being open to discussion, but don't be quick to accept that just because a scriptural reference is used that the interpretation of it cannot be wrong.

Follow-up flood discussion.

Original post

Ok, so I don’t really care what one believes as to whether the flood was local or global in extent. I don’t think it impacts the gospel message, and I don’t think it changes whether one can be saved through faith in Christ. In that aspect, I really don’t want to argue the points. Sure I’m willing to listen to a different perspective and maybe if I’m presented with overwhelming evidence I could change my view someday. However, I don’t think that has any impact on my interpretation of the bible as a whole. The major concern I have about the local flood interpretation is that God’s judgement was not universal. I do not find any evidence that God wants us to believe that humans other than Noah and his family survived the flood.

As far as the idea that God created more than one people group at the time of Creation... I think you can probably make a case for it that I may not be able to fully disprove, but I think God would have made this point much more clear if He had intended for us to interpret scripture this way. As it is written, it is much easier to interpret the language as God having created all peoples from Adam and Eve. Genesis is primarily written as a historical record and in this I think God's intention was to establish mankind through Adam. I think it also follows that since the gospel message is for all and Christ is the second Adam, that it would confuse the situation to claim that humankind was not all come through Adam, as obviously the entire church must proceed through Christ.

Point of View (vaccines and GMOs)

I have a hard time understanding people who do not vaccinate their children. Humans are living longer and healthier lives since the creation of vaccines than we have since Old Testament times. Vaccines have saved countless lives and saved billions of dollars on disease treatment. I can't imagine the horror of loosing a child to vaccine preventable diseases, but it happens every day in countries where vaccine use is not widespread. And because these diseases are not prevalent here the idea that they are not real threats seems to be widespread in this country. I would argue that because they are not eradicated and still exist in the world, they are still major threats. The accidental introduction through global migration of people would cause massive devastation in an un-vaccinated people group. See a Ted-talk on Polio eradication efforts

As far as GMOs are concerned, I guess I don't care if people want to waste their money, but most foods have no GMO counterpart anyway. The foods that do, namely corn and potatoes (since these are huge commodity items) have massive benefits to mankind. Maybe you are not of the mindset that starving people anywhere is a real problem, but the world population continues to increase and there needs to be a way to feed them. Genetically modified crops increase production per acre while decreasing pesticide use and carbon emissions from repeatedly driving over fields to spray those pesticides. Genetic modification occurs over time in any crop (through use of hybridization) to improve certain characteristics. Genetic modification in a lab just increases the speed at which these modifications can be obtained. There are not such drastic changes to plant structure that these changes are affecting our health. See Article.

In fact I challenge you that since the Fall of man the human DNA structure has been deteriorating. Do you not think it possible that increased disease rates in children could also be a sign of a continuously failing genome? Anyway, this is just some food for thought. Ted-talk on science denial

Noah's flood- Was it global, and did others survive?

Recently I have been challenged to defend my view on a global flood. This was in light of the possibility that there has been misinterpretation of the Hebrew language into our English understanding. I think, however, that it is important here to not attempt only to interpret the words correctly, but to understand the story within the context of the entire bible, and look at how this impacts how we view the gospel message as a whole. On that point, never having delved into this topic from the point of view that the flood may have been a local event, I didn’t have strong or convincing evidence to present, but I decided I needed to study the topic out further so that I could have understanding that would allow me to take a firm position on the issue.

The topic was brought to light in view of a belief that it was possible that humans other than Noah and his family survived the flood. There, another deep subject of interpretation was laid upon my doorstep. Did God create just one man and one woman or did He create other humans as well? I’ve always interpreted my biblical reading as God having created Adam and Eve, and the entire human race descending from them. However, I was challenged that God may have created many different races from the beginning, and thus races were not descended from the children of Noah, but were present from the beginning and survived the flood. Below is a discussion of my research on the matter.

First, one can see that there are 2 different recountings in Genesis of God’s creation of man. In the first He “created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female” (Genesis 1:27). In the second account “the Lord God formed man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7) and “Then the Lord God made the rib He had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man” (Genesis 2:22). Just because Genesis 1 does not explain the details of God’s creation of man does not mean that the account in Genesis 2 is talking of a separate Creation event whereby He could have created many men in chapter 1 and a special man in chapter 2.

In the Genesis 1 recounting God creates all the creatures and then creates humans, albeit all on the 6^th day of Creation. In the Genesis 2 recounting it can be interpreted that God creates man, then birds and wild animals, and later goes on to make woman. Why is there a different order to creation? From my understanding (and in this know that I do not have a fully developed understanding of the Hebrew language) the word  for ‘formed’ that is used in Genesis 2:19 in reference to the creation can be interpreted in the pluperfect form of the verb, meaning God had created them some time in the past. It does not have to be interpreted as a change in the chronology of events. For that matter Genesis 2 appears to be meant for added detail about the creation and purpose of man, not as a rehashing of the timeline of events established in chapter 1.

If we look at the bible as a whole for answers on the matter of whether Adam was the only man formed at the time of creation we can reference 1 Corinthians 15:45, “So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.” Additionally, when considering Genesis 2:20b, “but for the man no helper was found as his complement,” we can understand that there must not have been a woman upon the earth because surely if God had already created females He would not have had to take from Adam’s own flesh to find him a wife. Even the naming of Eve speaks to the existence of only two people on the earth. Genesis 3:20, “Adam named his wife Eve because she was the mother of all the living.” Acts 17:26 also helps draw this conclusion, “From one man (or ‘one blood’) He has made every nationality to live over the whole earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live.”

Even if this evidence was not conclusive, if there were other races or people groups formed at the time of creation, why would Adam’s sin have condemned everyone? God says in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, ” For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. ²² For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” Throughout the bible God condemns those who sin and even curses their children at times, but why would God condemn someone who has not sinned? Romans 5:12, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned.” And yes, you may say that they sinned as well, but the bible makes it clear that the curse of death is due to Adam’s original sin. Romans 5:17a, “Since by the one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man.” I think if God had created other peoples we would have been told of their ‘Fall’ as well.

Some would also argue that if Adam and Eve were the only humans their children would not have had spouses. This is due to God’s laws against marriage to siblings. The bible makes it clear that Adam and Eve had a large family consisting of both sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). At this time in history God did not have any laws against marriage of siblings. These laws did not come into effect until the time of Moses. Leviticus 18:6 “You are not to come near any close relative for sexual intercourse; I am Yahweh.” In fact in Genesis 20:12 we learn that Sarah is Abraham’s half-sister, “Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife.” God blesses this union despite the charge of incest one could apply from today’s perspective. And, even if you did want to condemn sibling marriage- since the law was not in place there was no way of holding anyone accountable. Romans 5:13 “In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to a person’s account when there is no law.“ Therefore I conclude that Adam and Eve’s children likely married one another.

We see that Cain is married, and has children, but it is not clear when he married. The bible only indicates that he had a child in the land of Nod after being banished (Genesis 4:17). The passage does not indicate that he took a wife for himself after he arrived in Nod. I conclude that he was married to one of his sisters prior to his banishment.

As for the claims that like beget like, and we could not have different races if God did not create them from the beginning, I again present Acts 17:26- “From one man He has made every nationality to live over the whole earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live.” Beyond that I consider the biologic differences of the races to be miniscule at best. Genetic differences between races are less than 0.2% of our DNA. In fact there are more genetic differences between a man and woman than there are between a black man and white man. If you consider what the human race has done in developing dog breeds for specific purposes- completely changing the size and shape, making anything and everything from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane – is it really that hard to imagine that people groups living on different continents for hundreds of years could develop skin tones that are the result of more or less melanin in their skin? Or that maybe the traits needed for survival (e.g. increased athletic ability in the African safari) would become predominant due to the ‘survival of the fittest’ phenomena?  We are not told in the bible that Adam and Eve were white or black or yellow, we have no idea what their genetic potential might have held. Here I rest my case. I find no strong biblical evidence that God created anyone other than Adam and Eve during the Creation events, and I find multiple areas of support for the claim that they were the sole humans present at that time. I think to draw further conclusion from the text is to test God- something He has warned us against. Deuteronomy 6:16a, “Do not test the Lord your God.”

Now, moving on to the topic of a local or global flood. It has been brought to my attention that the phrase translated “all the earth” in Genesis 6 can and has, in other parts of Genesis, been translated as a piece of land. With this in mind, I looked intently at scripture to try to draw a conclusion as to whether this was God’s intended interpretation in this case.

First I think it important to address the reason God sent a flood. Genesis 6:5-7, “When the Lord saw that man’s wickedness was widespread on the earth and that every scheme his mind thought of was nothing but evil all the time, ⁶ the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. ⁷ Then the Lord said, ‘I will wipe off from the face of the earth mankind, whom I created, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky—for I regret that I made them.’” This passage indicates that all men that lived upon the earth were sinful. And as established previously- the Fall affected all men. Therefore, why would you draw a conclusion other than it was God’s intention to destroy all men? Genesis 7:23, “He wiped out every living thing that was on the surface of the ground, from mankind to livestock, to creatures that crawl, to the birds of the sky, and they were wiped off the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark.” 2 Peter 2:5b reiterates this, “He didn’t spare the ancient world, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others, when He brought a flood on the world of the ungodly.” In Luke 17:27 it is reported that, “People went on eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day Noah boarded the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” The word ‘all’ in this passage meaning each and every one. Therefore I conclude that the purpose of the flood was to destroy all human life, so even if the flood were not global, God’s intent seems to be the destruction of all human life aside from Noah and his family.

As for the debate for or against a global flood, ‘erets’- the word used in the Genesis 6 flood account is used to refer both to the whole earth (Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth [erets].” or Genesis 1:10a “God called the dry land ‘earth,’”) and a section of land (Genesis 2:11, “The name of the first is Pishon, which flows through the entire land [erets] of Havilah”). However, when the word erets is interpreted in a local sense it is generally qualified with some boundary. In the flood account the word erets is used without qualification. Additionally, references to the flood in the New Testament (eg. Hebrews 11:7 and 2 Peter 2:5) use the word kosmos to describe the world- that being defined as universe or world or inhabitants of the world. In this case the New Testament writers are clearly portraying a global event.

When Jesus describes the end of the age in Matthew 24:37-39 He is referring to a world-wide event. “As the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be. ³⁸ For in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah boarded the ark. ³⁹ They didn’t know until the flood came and swept them all away. So this is the way the coming of the Son of Man will be.” Based on the context here, we can imply that both events are global in expanse. There is clearly an implication that humanity at large has become evil in both of these cases. Therefore, why would God have limited His judgement to only one small area?

As a related discussion topic, there are some questions about the survival of fish in a global flood (among other related topics). Fish as we see them today are generally either fresh or salt water creatures. In the case of a common body of water during the flood how would these fish have survived? I think it possible that the fish at the time were able to live in mixed salinity water. As discussed earlier about human skin tone, fish likely have undergone microevolutionary changes which have lead to development of fresh and salt water fish species. I don’t see why we would expect that animals we have today are not significantly altered from their genetic state at the time of the flood. Selection pressures have changed milk production in dairy cows from a mere 3,000 pounds per cow annually in 1900 to nearly 20,000 pounds annually today. Obviously we did not change cows into horses, but we have significantly altered their genetics. It just seems reasonable to believe that over almost 6,000 years there may have been significant genetic changes which would have allowed the survival of fish at the time of the flood.

Furthermore, I think that implications as to whether the flood was global and killed off everyone other than Noah have implications that ripple down into interpretation of the gospel message. The ark can be a representation of God’s saving grace. Noah was saved through the flood waters via the ark- God’s way of escape. If others survived the flood without going through the ark, then the conclusion could be drawn that even though God has said that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ, could there not be some other way to sneak by? Luke 14:6 states, “Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.’” Let there be no doubt, the only way into heaven is through the front door. A faith in Jesus Christ is our only choice for salvation. The idea that God’s judgement can be escaped is a slippery slope and one I don’t think worth entertaining. Here I rest my case again. I think God asks us to study scripture to have a complete understanding, but in the context of the bible in its entirety, I find that God has provided a strong case for a global flood interpretation with the idea that He intended to judge the whole earth.