Question #1:
Hello Dr. Bob,
I have a question about the timing of the devil's desire to inhabit a physical
body as his convincing reason for the other angels to join him in revolt against
God since humans and animals were not created yet when their rebellion happened,
therefore the object of their lusts is absent.
Pardon me if this seems inconsequential to you but this is confusing to me.
Thanks a lot for the putting ichthys in the web.
Sincerely,
Response #1:
Good to hear from you again.
While we aren't told much about the situation before Satan's fall, it does seem
clear (as outlined in part 1 of the SR series) that the earth existed in a state
of perfection at that time, and that there already was extant an extensive flora
and fauna as well – this is represented by the fossil record. In my
understanding of events, while there were no human beings (obviously) there were
all manner of animals before the fall. Satan's revolt precipitated the
withdrawal of the Father to the third heaven, and consequent to that the devil
and his minions began the process of genetically manipulating the creatures of
that time – from which it seems obvious to me that we owe the origin of the
dinosaurs (variations on smaller creatures in the same way that even
pre-industrial revolution mankind was able to manipulate various breeds of dogs,
e.g., which all go back to one common strain/species). Satan did not create
them; he and his merely altered them (along the lines of his Genesis chapter six
interference with human beings).
As I say, this is covered in SR 1 as well in some of
the various email response postings at Ichthys. Do feel free to write me back
about any of this, however.
Satan's Revolt and the Tribulation to Come
Angelic Issues V: Michael, the Angel of the Lord, Christophany, demons, cherubs, and Satan's revolt.
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #2:
Hello Dr Luginbill. I hope you are doing well.
1) In Mathew 6:2 when Jesus said the hypocrites have their reward, what
reward in particular was he talking about?
2) In Solomon's conclusion in Ecclesiastes 12:13, what exactly does he
mean by the duty of men is to keep God's commandments?
3) What lead Satan to think that a Holy God could not replace the fallen
Angels and judge sin?
Thanks as always
Response #2:
Hello Friend,
Always good to hear from you. As to your questions . . .
1) The reward a hypocrite receives who prays for the sake of being seen
or gives for the sake of being seen is being seen – that is to say, the
"glory" he/she receives from other human beings; but such a person gets
no credit from God because the motives were impure.
2) Whatever God tells us to do are "His commandments", that is, not just
the 10 of Exodus/Deuteronomy nor the commandments in the Law – this is
referring to the express Will of God. Now that we have the Holy Spirit
(and now that the Law has been superseded: Heb.7:12), knowing what God's
will is for us individually is a more particular thing, possible for the
mature believer in Christ to discern through the Spirit and the
application of the truth (e.g., Rom.12:1-2; Phil.1:9-10; Heb.5:14).
3) How any angelic creature who had stood in the presence of God
Almighty could ever think of rebelling from Him, or want to, or in any
way think that he might be successful is certainly staggering to
contemplate. However we do know for certain that Satan did so, and that
he was able to convince a third of angelic kind to join him in his
revolt. This is a testimony to the corrupting nature of arrogance
(pride, after all, was his downfall: Ezek28:17), and the ability of
creatures with free will to blot out the truth so as to be able to
completely ignore it through the process of
the hardening of the heart (see the link).
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Dear Bob, thank you for your email, yes winter is coming for sure and
all my horses coats are all growing their winter coats and my pet sheep
also looking twice the size re his winter coat too.
I was thinking about the Gap Theory and Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah and you
wrote:
"Arrogant pride, attributed specifically to Satan's high esteem for his own appearance, is at the root of the thought pattern described in Isaiah's five "I wills" (Is.14:13-14; see above). Persistent and obsessive preoccupation with his own loveliness over time had a corrupting influence upon Satan's whole mental attitude, neutralizing, then effectively destroying his conscience, his character and his wholesome fear of God (cf. Eph.4:19; 1Tim.4:2). This arrogance led to a complete perversion of the devil's thought process, and these mental attitude sins blossomed into overt activity; specifically, they led to the canvassing of his fellow angels for support in rebelling against the Lord (i.e., "your extensive conspiring" and "the unrighteousness of your conspiring"). The judgments described here are largely yet future, but, since the devil's fate is certain (since it has been decreed by God), they can be described as already having taken place."
So you are saying some of these judgments had already taken place? and some are
in the future. The regular church people think they are all reserved for the
future. Also do you think it's possible that there was people on the earth
before Genesis, would this idea account for the mysterious ancient monuments. I
saw something about an ancient people who lived in Ukraine and dating their
artwork 25000 years ago work. If Lucifer corrupted people living on earth
wouldn't this account for Ezekiel 28? Then I think, well Adam was the first man,
so maybe I am wrong.
No rush I know you are busy doing the work of our glorious God, as usual.
from Tasmania
Response #3:
Good to hear from you – and before I forget to mention it, there are now
audio files available for some of these
postings (courtesy of Chris Bergquist and as read by "Ryan the Robot; see the
link).
As to your question, both Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 contain some elements
describing Satan's original position in the Eden of God which was indeed on this
planet before the events that occasioned the situation found in Genesis 1:2
occurred (i.e., after the Genesis Gap; see the link);
but both also contain descriptions of the devil's eventual end (which obviously
hasn't yet occurred). It is typical of Old Testament prophecy to give a
panoramic view of future events telescoped together (see the link:
"Prophetic Foreshortening"), and this is the case in these two passages as
well. After all, we know very well from the book of Job that the devil still
attends concourses in heaven (chapters 1-2), and from the book of Revelation
that he is still accusing believers "day and night" (Rev.12:10), and will not be
thrown down to earth until the Tribulation's mid-point (Rev.12:9). Between
Genesis 1:1, the creation of everything from nothing, and Genesis 1:2, the devil
corrupted the world of that time and occasioned the departure of God to the
third heaven (from the original paradise earth) and the judgment sometime
thereafter upon the universe, blacking it out and filling it with the universal
deep (the tehom). Genesis 1:2 commences the reestablishment of the world,
the earth in particular, as a habitable place for the final seven thousand years
of the conflict wherein God uses a lesser creature than the angels to refute all
of Satan's lies and in the process restore to Himself twice what was lost – as
is the divine pattern of grace. The idea one often hears being bruited about
these days to the effect that there were creatures with free will on earth
before the cataclysm is entirely wrong-headed and built upon no biblical
evidence whatsoever; it seems to be a fascination with fossil evidence instead,
and here there is no solid ground merely shifting sand. There may have been
ape-like creatures living on earth pre-Genesis 1:2, but not with the image of
God. Also, any archaeological "proof" to the contrary is based upon flawed
theories (see the links:
"Archaeology and Faith"; "Archaeological theories"). Only the angels and
mankind have free will and self-determination in the plan of God, "the image of
God", and mankind has only been here for 6,000 years.
Do feel free to write me back about any of the above. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28
are treated at the link in
SR 1 section IV
"Satan's Character, Sin and Fall".
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
As I was reading Genesis chapter 1 I noticed something that I have been
overlooking; I have read this chapter at least 50 times and never realized this:
I noticed that at the end of each activity it says "There was evening and there
was morning, a one day beginning from the first day to the sixth day."
What escaped me was: On the seventh day, this phrase is not repeated, it only
says that "by the seventh day completed His work...".
Comment: I know that this is a special day, the 7th day or the "Last Day"
because it states: "Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because
in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made"
Seems to me that this 7th day parallels the Last Day, the Millennial reign of
Christ, which we will enjoy with Him, ruling and reigning with Him on the earth.
Question: Am I correct in my assumptions or ...?
Secondly, I also noted that it says: "there was evening and there was morning,
one day". The evening (darkness) is stated first which coincides with the
darkness that the re-created earth in verse two became.
Question: Am I correct in my observation or ?
Question: In Genesis chapter 4, it says: "This is the account of the heavens and
the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and
heaven."
Based on your study of the Genesis Gap: does this verse 4 refer to the
re-created earth starting in Verse 2, or does this Verse 4 refer to the original
creation of the heavens and earth in Verse 1?
This verse uses the word "day", I assume that it is referring to the re-created
earth. This can be somewhat confusing to me, can you in-confuse me?
Question: Is there any significance to Abram "not cutting" the birds in half
which is stated in Genesis 15:9.?
Looks like there is also some significance the other "three-year" old animals
that he did cut it half.
Also, is there any great significance to "three year" old animals, in other
words, why "three year old"; could it be symbolic of how long Christ served in
His Ministry?
Hope these comments and question are not too trivial.
Thanks ever so much for you help in these.
Seems like a great number of people are fascinated with the upcoming Solar
eclipse soon to take place.. Makes no sense to me .. but not interested in
knowing God's Word though.
Blessings be upon you my friend,
Response #4:
What you are experiencing is indeed a very common thing for believers who are
really seeking God through His truth, namely, the continuing illumination of all
manner of truths coming both from reading and re-reading scripture and also from
diligent Bible study.
As to your questions:
1) Absolutely yes! There are seven millennial days of human history all of which
last 1,000 years, the Millennium being the last. The seven days wherein the Lord
reconstructed / renewed the universe and the earth to make it habitable for
human beings deliberately foreshadow and parallel these seven thousand "age
days" which follow. God could have reconstructed the world in the blink of an
eye of course; that is how He made it in the first place, perfectly, as recorded
in Genesis 1:1. The six day process and the seventh day of rest are meant to
teach us many things about human history and the conflict between Satan and the
Lord against which our present human history is being played out. Here is a link
to a excerpt file where this is treated:
"The Seven Days of
Human History".
2) That is also correct and an important point to notice because, clearly, God
is light and therefore the darkness which had to be corrected had to have been
the result of creature sin/rebellion. Though we are in a world of darkness now,
the end of all things will be light, and in the eternal state there will be no
more night (Rev.21:25; 22:5).
3) This verse – you mean Genesis 2:4 – is frequently misunderstood,
mistranslated, misinterpreted, and misused. Here is the way I render it:
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth in their creation, throughout the entire period that the Lord God fashioned earth and heavens.
Genesis 2:4
The word "day" I have translated as "period" because this is a summary statement which includes everything that happened from original creation in Genesis 1:1 through the gap and to the end of the seven days of re-creation. Here is what I write about this verse in SR 2:
Coming as it does immediately after God's resting on the seventh day, verse four begins in the classic manner of an explanation with asyndeton (that is, with no intervening connectives like "and"). Theoretically, the verse could look backwards or forwards. The disjunctive opening of verse five eliminates the latter possibility (because an introductory explanation would not then be immediately followed by a rough break of the sort occurring in verse five). However, if we take verse four as a summary of everything written so far in the book, the sense will be confusing at best – unless we factor in that it includes both original creation and the seven days of re-creation. Failure to understand that both elements are included in the summary of verse four is at the heart of attempts to link the verse to what follows in an unnatural way, or even to split it in two in the manner of the NIV.
The vocabulary used in Genesis 2:4 to summarize creation and re-creation is both consistent and precise: we are told of the "creation" of heaven and earth, and the Lord God's "fashioning" of them. The word for creation is the Hebrew bar'ah (ברא), while to fashion or make is the Hebrew 'asah (עשה). Now bar'ah is most often used in scripture for miraculous, creative activities of the Lord (the word, incidentally, found in Genesis 1:1 for "created"), whereas 'asah is the most common Hebrew word for making and doing and has many subjects in scripture in addition to the Deity. The clue to why Moses, the writer of the Pentateuch, felt the need to employ both verbs here is to be found in the word "generations" (toledhoth, תולדות). This plural is normally used in the Old Testament to detail the ancestry or lineage of human families, and therefore necessarily includes the idea of development over a significant amount of time. Here, therefore, "generations" is clearly being used by way of analogy to sum up the "developments", that is, the different periods of history for the heavens and the earth, namely: 1) original creation; 2) judgment and Genesis Gap; 3) re-creation. So while it is clearly difficult to reconcile this verse with a seven-day original creation theory, by combining the verb of creation (ba'rah – Genesis 1:1: most suited for original creation), with the verb of manufacture ('asah – found throughout the seven days, e.g., Gen.1:7; 1:16; 1:25: more suited to reconstitution), and by setting both verbs in a context of lengthy, "generational" development, Genesis 2:4 makes perfect sense as a summing up of all that has gone before: the original creation of Genesis 1:1, the Genesis Gap, and the seven days of re-creation:These are the generations of the heavens and the earth in their creation, throughout the entire period that the Lord God fashioned earth and heavens.
Genesis 2:4Also important is the reversal of order between "the heavens and the earth" in the first part of the verse and "earth and heavens" without definite articles in the second half: during the reconstruction, which is what the second half of the verse summarizes, earth is mentioned first and "heavens" are the name given to the manufactured "expanse" or firmament which is not made until day two. Only by understanding Genesis 1:1 as original creation and what follows beginning with Genesis 1:2 as a process of reconstruction does Genesis 2:4 make sense.
4) Our Lord's ministry was actually three and a half years (see the chart). In
the absence of any specific scriptural indication I would prefer to see the
number as reflective of the Trinity. As to the birds, this is how they are
handled in the later Law of Moses as well (cf. Lev.1:17). I would imagine that
the reason has to do with the relative smallness of birds, whereas goats, sheep
and cattle are large enough to be split in two and make an impression on the
person making a covenant of this kind; the dual message being 1) this is what
will happen to you if you break your end of the agreement (cf. Jer.34:18), and
2) this is analogous to what happened to Christ in order to ratify all
agreements between God and man and provide reconciliation (cf. Heb.10:10;
10:20).
Yes, the band of greatest darkness passes through KY just about sixty miles from
my university and happens on our first day of class. I'll be surprised if I have
50% attendance on Monday.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #5:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
I'd like to thank you again for your prayers. I can tell that I've been given
perseverance and strength even in extremely difficult situations in life. And I
know for absolute certainty that it's because of prayers.
The bible states that even things under the Earth will bow to the name of Jesus.
What are the things under the earth. I've heard people say that under the earth
refers to people who are in hades, or the dead who are buried under the earth
literally. I've even heard someone say that there are intelligent creatures who
actually dwell under the earth. What are those who are "under" the earth?
God Bless you and your ministry,
Response #5:
You are most welcome, my friend. I would imagine that you are getting some
prayer support from Ichthys readers too. How is the living situation coming? I
keep you and your family, you mother in particular, in my prayers day by day.
There are no "intelligent creatures" dwelling below the earth. The only
creatures below the earth at present are the fallen angels who are at the moment
incarcerated in the Abyss, as well as all departed unbelievers who are in
Torments.
In Philippians 2:10, Paul is referring to the time when everyone, believers and
elect angels, fallen angels and unbelievers at the last judgment, will
acknowledge the Lord (so "under" does mean incarcerated fallen angels and
departed unbelievers in that passage). In eternity, there will only be two
places of habitation for creatures who made choices of free will in this world:
the new heavens and new earth or the lake of fire.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #6:
The property that I'm renting out is still for sale by my landlord. I would
guess that whoever purchases it would more than likely rent it out to me. And
even if the new owner decided not to rent it out, I still would not say that
it's the worst case scenario because I know that God seeks the highest good in
each of His children, and whatever happens, regardless of how uncertain things
may seem to me, I know I can rely on my heavenly Father. I am absolutely certain
that He will honor all my prayers and the prayers from you and others on
Ichthys. Thank you again!
God Bless,
Response #6:
I'm very encouraged by your faith!
Keep fighting the good fight, my friend, and I promise to keep you in my
prayers.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #7:
Dear Dr. Robert,
Good day!
I have read your Satanic Rebellion Part 1 & 2, and Im very thankful for
a very a good biblical presentations and reflections on the subject of
Creation and First Fall.
I just would like to share my thoughts on the subject of "Recreation" as
it gives me confusions on your presentations. How come that Gen 1:1
heaven & earth already was created? and then God proceeds again in
Genesis 1:2 to recreate heaven & earth again...I don't have any biblical
or theology background nor any knowledge on Hebrew, Greek language
interpretations but in my own little understanding in order to shed
light on the "Recreation" confusions is to parallel our understanding of
Gen 1:1 to Gospel of John 1:1..In which stated "In the beginning was the
Word".
In my humble understanding Gen1:1 only existed in the "Thought of God".
God is the ALPHA...He thought on creating the Heavens & the Earth first
and hovering the waters from the earth meaning His Spirit seeing all
that will happens/unfolding to the earth. He already knows what will
happen after the creation or the whole story of mankind in the end..He
is also the OMEGA..and then proceeded with its spiritual & material
creation..Just like John 1:1 from the beginning... Jesus was not yet in
the flesh but a Word first.
Hope you appreciate my thoughts. But my main purpose for this email is
to further inquire on the Part 1, which is the First Fall.
1. If Lucifer is the only one whom God has found iniquities, how come
1/3 of the angels join with him..
2. I just cant fully accept the utterance of "Non Serviam" without the
whole drama which led Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels.
3. Also, I would like to ask if when is the First Fall committed? I have
an inclination on the First Day, because it mentioned that Light was
separated from the Darkness...I believe that after the separations God
cast out Lucifer into the Garden of Eden thereafter....
Just my thoughts. Hope and pray that God will give you grace time to
answer my queries.
God Bless!
Response #7:
Good to make your acquaintance. Our friend, pastor-teacher Curtis Omo from
Bible Academy, forwarded
this message to me.
Thank you for your kind words about this ministry.
In terms of your question, I think it is answered in detail in
the second part of the SR series, "The Genesis Gap".
Simply put, verse one of the Bible speaks of original creation (just as the
first verses of the gospel of John, to which you refer, speak of the situation
before creation). However, already in the next verse, Genesis 1:2, we find an
earth which is now destroyed – by divine judgment on account of Satan's revolt.
So verse one and verse two are not talking about the same thing at all.
Everything God creates is created perfect, in light and not darkness. But in
Genesis 1:2 we find darkness not light. Why? Because of the judgment. So in
order to create mankind – created as God's rebuke to Satan and His replacement
for him – the universe had to be repaired and the earth in particular restored
to habitable conditions. For man would be a physical creature as well as a
spiritual one.
In terms of Satan's revolt, that is spelled out in part
one of the SR series, and the time of the revolt must have taken place in
the no doubt very long time period between original creation (which is followed
by judgment) and the re-establishment of the world for the creation of mankind.
Because, as you rightly intuit, there is not enough time in the six days of
re-creation for the devil to gain the following of one third of all the angels.
First there was God (Jn.1:1ff); then there was original creation (Gen.1:1); then
there was an indeterminate period wherein the angels served God; then there was
the satanic conspiracy culminating in revolt (covered in Isaiah chapter fourteen
and Ezekiel chapter twenty-eight); then there was the judgment on the universe
(whose after effects are seen in Genesis 1:2); then there was the re-creation of
the six days (in the rest of Genesis chapter one following Gen.1:2). That is the
only reconstructed chronology which fits the biblical facts – and it fits then
perfectly. However, seeing Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 as the same thing is impossible,
because God created the world in perfection not desolation resulting from
destruction (cf. Is.45:18); and of course there is no time for the revolt of
Satan if the six days were original, and no reason for the creation of mankind
either (part 3 of the SR series deals with that). And also, of course, God
creates the earth in verse one, but in verse two, the earth is already there.
So keep reading, my friend! The answers are all in there. You might also want to
consult the following links:
The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers V
The Grammar behind the Genesis Gap
The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers
The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers II
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #8:
Dear Dr. Robert,
Good day!
I appreciate your taking time to answer my queries..
You're right in Gen1:1 God already made heaven and earth its not a thought as I
understand it before...Although from Gen1:2, I looked again the passages the
wordings are " the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face
of the deep. I've just couldn't grasp fully the idea that when you read without
form & void it will mean the created earth was destroyed already...I thought it
voids & without form because day4 & day5 is the time God will fills the earth as
seen in the passage on the book of Job...when God set the foundations of the
earth...I think there is judgement in Gen1:2 because it's the time when Lucifer
& third of the angels rebel...That's why God separated the light from darkness.
I've read other article stating that angels were on probationary period because
they are created with free will and God wanted to test the fidelity of the
angels..God knew all along that because of freewill iniquities will be
committed. Thats why the word "and darkness was on the face of the deep" means
hell follows. God omniscient knew it, and waited for it to happens first so that
when He created man with freewill also..Satan will be there to test now the
fidelity of created Man.
Maybe my mind perspective is leaning on other possibilities. Because in my mind
the ultimate purpose of God creating the heaven & earth, angels & all other
created things is to serve & accomplished his ultimate goal that is in the
appointed time He will open His Eternal Kingdom and welcomes all worthy
man/Christians capable/battle-tested of giving Him "perfect worship&adoration
just like the angels" and capable of "giving perfect/unconditional love" just
like His Son Jesus.. But the perfection of man's adoration & love requires a
testing and must be perfected here on earth..As it is written nothing defiles
can enter the Kingdom of God.
I will do further reading on your e-mailed links, my goal is to know the causes
& circumstances of Lucifer resentment to God that leads to his anger & hatred to
God & mankind. Im looking at the frustrations of Lucifer because all along he
thought God will make him the leader of the angels, but unfortunately it was
given to St. Michael, next he thought he was God most beautiful creations it
came out that God has in mind creating a human being in His own image &
likeness..Also, in his perfect wisdom it never comes to his bright mind that God
Almighty was a Trinity....and plan to send His begotten son in the likeness of
the lower being called man...which all knees must bend in heavens & on earth..
Hope & pray your articles will leads me in that understanding.
Again, thank you very much & God bless!
Sincerely,
Response #8:
It's my pleasure, my friend. Thank you for your thoughtful observations.
The traditional translations of Genesis 1:2 are often be very misleading. They
are usually attempts to obscure the fact that the earth is in a ruined state in
that verse – something which makes no sense until one understands that this is
the post-judgment earth we are talking about. So "without form and void" or
similar makes it sound as if things we just not completed yet – as if somehow
God has started His work but hadn't gotten around to finishing yet. But that is
not at all what the actual Hebrew words tohu waw bhohu mean, as is very
obvious when one looks at how this phrase is used elsewhere in the Old
Testament. I translate "ruined and despoiled", making it clear that God is not
responsible for the darkness and devastation of His originally perfect creation
(in verse one). Here is a link to where this is covered in detail:
"The
Description of Earth in Genesis 1:2".
Feel free to write me any time!
Your in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #9:
Good day to Dr. Bob,
Thanks for your answer about Eve temptation, I appreciate and tell you
honestly I agree with your explanation 100 percent. It is clearly man's
behavior who is deeply & madly in love with a woman to follow her cause
no matter what even in hell probably..
Also, about the Genesis Gap & Recreation Theory I reread it again
following your link, and it's now clear to me that your absolutely
correct.
To tell you honestly, I'm studying this prayerfully and I really don't
know what urges me.
I hope you don't mind sharing my prayerful thoughts after reading again
the part of your article Gen 1:1 & Gen1:2...Clearly in the beginning God
created the heavens & the earth in good form. I support your theory of
the earth was became ruined, despoiled, uninhabitable and so was clearly
destroyed if not completely...Logically God will not be the one who had
done this. So you're theory of Satan's Revolt & God's Judgement fits
perfectly, making Gen1:2 a separate event...However if we concentrate on
this two verses alone. We can logically conclude that in this particular
time I would say the angels were already created...and not in the in the
period of Recreation starting from Gen1:3 and the following. So angels
are created separate from the Day 1 & Day 6.
To visualize or explains what happens in Gen 1:2 about God's Judgement &
Satans Revolt. We must believe that the Fall of Lucifer & the Third
Angel happens in this time. Since their numbers constitute many, clearly
they don't want to leave heaven so there's a battle & intense fight
between them...After they cast out forcefully from heaven & thrown into
the earth. I suppose they all vented their anger on God's created earth
ruining it & destroying it good features to make it inhabitable to
express their anger and hinders the plan of God which is next to Create
Man to share his benefits and glory.
Although, in your succeeding theory on the coup d' etat, Satan's
conspiracy to overthrow God, and you also mentioned the desire of the
third angels to experience sensual or experience possessing man &
animals in their flesh...For me this is quite illogical because Satan's
revolt happens in Gen1:2, Recreation does not even happen yet this
angels have no knowledge yet about that creations. The one thing that
has only been revealed to them in Gen 1:2, I supposed after God found
iniquities with Lucifer, because of the third of angels believing
Lucifer in his evil trading that if God will elect him as Prince of the
Heavenly Host, he will put them in position of authority. that is
Lucifer promise and the third of the angels was infected by Lucifer's
Pride & Ambitions..
You see when God announce to summons all the angels in Gen 1:2 to reveal
His Plan of Creation...The first thing He did is to announce to all that
He is choosing St. Michael the Archangel as their Prince...To Lucifer's
astonishment as well to the rest of the third angel. And to their
surprise the Almighty God is a Trinity, and plan to send his begotten
son in the form of the flesh on which they have to adore & worship
Lucifer's said what.??..what in the hell you want us to bend our knees
on a lower being...no way after you deprive me of my ambitions after you
ruin my pride of wanting to be the leader of the Heavenly Host....shame
on you "I WILL NOT SERVE"...and so the story continues.
Thanks a lot for helping me come up with this prayerful thoughts.
God bless!
Hope reading the rest of your articles will lead me more to God's
mysteries of creation.
Sincerely,
Response #9:
Thanks for your good words, my friend.
As to the timing of these things, there is evidence in scripture that
the earth was the original seat of the Lord and that earth was the
original Eden. Satan's revolt (following Gen.1:1 but long before
Gen.1:2) resulted in the Lord moving headquarters to the third heaven,
while Satan and his forces reveled in their "conquest" of the earth –
but only for some finite period of time (also unknown but probably long
– long enough to explain the fossil record). After Satan had
sufficiently proved his depravity and unfitness for ruling the universe,
God eventually judged the universe as a result and blacked it out,
filling it with the universal deep (angels, while powerful, can't darken
a universe filled with light as the original one must have been); this
judgment was designed to prevent further manipulation of the world by
the devil and his followers. But instead of sending Satan and company to
hell at that point, in an incredible act of mercy the Lord restored the
universe from its devastated state (which is seen in Gen.1:2) through
the seven days of re-creation (Gen.1:3ff.), and created a new species
which, like the angels, also had the image and likeness of God. This new
species, mankind, was clearly meant as a replacement for Satan and his
rebels – but also as an olive branch: once they saw the devastation, the
re-creation, and the reality of imminent replacement, the proper course
would have been to throw themselves on the Lord's mercy. They did not,
of course, and the rest is history – human history, the seven thousand
years wherein the devil is completely defeated, refuted and replaced;
this is followed by eternity and the new heavens and the new earth.
All these things are written up in
the SR series, but do
please let me know if there is anything you are wondering about in
particular and I can point you to pertinent links.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #10:
Good day Dr. Bob,
Hope I can finish reading some of your voluminous work, It's a
tremendous piece of work, I scanned the eschatological articles I'm
interested to read but I cant comprehend yet a good picture how to grasp
the big story.
About your reply...I thought angel being pure intellectual creature see
clearly the consequences of their actions, so they are incapable of
repentance & much yet seeking the Lord's mercy. Satan & the third of
angel does not "conquest" rather "cast" down the earth. You're correct
Satan & his followers is not cast down directly to hell yet but in some
biblical passages it seems to appear Satan & demons were already there
tormenting humans, I think, God in His Divine plan will use them for
man's perfection & tribulation. God seeing the hatred of Satan against
His plan of creating man in His own image & likeness. That's the way I
see those things unfold upon reflections.
You had mentioned moving God headquarters to third heaven. Is this in
the NT St. Paul saying he got caught in the third heaven. But the abode
of God is in the highest heavens & earth is just His footstool ..As
reference to "The Highest Heavens cannot contain God whom you carried in
your womb".
My follow-up question is in First Temptation you mentioned they devise
their attack and they triumph Eve first then Adam. But in the New
Testament they fail miserably how come they pursue tempting Jesus and
not Mary. I read an article that said Satan is not 100% sure Jesus is
God, is this biblically correct? He is just an extraordinary pious man.
And Satan will never tempt or go nearer Mary because he terribly fear
God's punishment in Gen 3:15.
Would you mind sharing your expertise to shed light on this matter.
Thanks again for your fast reply.
God bless.
Sincerely,
Response #10:
These things do take time to read and digest – they took me a long time to
produce!
As to the nature of angels, please see BB 2A Angelology
(at the link). Angels are different from human beings in many ways, but not in
the most important way, that is, possessing the image and likeness of God: free
will. Most human beings will never believe in Christ. Very many are hard as a
rock in their heart, like the rocky soil which refuses to let the seed of the
Word in as found in the parable of the Sower. And to their dying day, regardless
of what they hear or see or experience, they will not even give the gospel a
hearing – but that does not mean they cannot. It only means that they WILL not.
Their failure to respond does not mean or prove or indicate that they did not
have free will and the ability as well as the opportunity to respond to the
Lord. And any plea at the last judgment such as "it's not my fault because YOU
made me this way!" will be shown to be blasphemously wrong (Is.29:16; 45:9;
Jer.18:4-6; Rom.9:20). They had free will. They chose. The same exact thing is
true of the angels.
Now while it is true that once – after eons of seeing God face to face – the
angels have chosen sides, there is every indication that none of them has ever
changed sides again, that (apparent) fact does not mean that they – meaning in
particular Satan and his followers – did not have the opportunity and the
ABILITY to do so. Of course they did/do – they have free will. They will not do
it – just like hardened unbelievers for the most part will not do it. But some
of us human beings do. Some turn from unbelief to faith, and some, like the
prodigal son, come back from straying to the faith. THAT is the lesson to
angels, elect and fallen, which we human beings provide, namely, that some
creatures given free will WILL indeed respond to God's grace and come back to
Him (both for salvation and restoration) – and even more importantly that all
slander which suggests that God will not forgive or be merciful if any such
should wish to return to Him is a damnable lie: He gave up His one and only dear
Son to die in the darkness for the sins of the world that we might have the
opportunity to be saved, and that Gift in its smallest part is greater than all
human and angelic experience and speculation to an infinite degree.
There are three
heavens (see the link). The casting down to earth of the devil does not
happen until the Tribulation's midpoint (Rev.12:9); at present the devil does
appear before the Lord at appointed times to slander believers (Job chapters
1-2; Rev.12:10). When the devil and his forces rebelled, they defiled by their
sin the original world/earth. That is why God departed to the third heaven – a
place technically outside of "this kosmos/world" (Heb.9:11; cf. Jn.18:36), that
is, to preserve His holiness . . . until such time as He would, through His
perfect plan (in the creation and salvation of mankind) defeat and refute the
evil one, restoring things to perfection in a way that brings Him glory forever.
Here is a link on the
"geography of the cosmos" from the biblical point of view.
On your final question, I don't agree with the premise. The devil and his forces
have always had "tactical victories" but "strategic defeats". That is to say,
they are continually opposing God, the plan of God, and the people of God, and
they do succeed, for example, in making our lives miserable at times – but not
in making us who are truly blessed miserable in fact because we are blessed
beyond understanding in our beloved Jesus Christ! So they did cause Job great
pain and trouble, for example, but in the end they were defeated and Job's final
state was greater than his last state. As to the odd speculation you have read,
well, one can find all manner of silly things out there in cyberspace. But
clearly, the devil has been in the presence of God from the beginning, and he
certainly knows that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the incarnate second
person of the Trinity – better than even most Christians. The problem for the
devil and his minions is not knowledge; the problem is choice: they are rebels
and their denial of the truth has hardened their hearts to point where they
allow no light in, just as in the case of many human unbelievers.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #11:
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
Exodus 20:11
Young Earth Creationists have stated that because this verse says that God created "everything that is in it" in six days, that therefore nothing existed prior to the first day of creation. How do you interpret this important verse?
Response #11:
It says "made" ('asah) not "created" (bara'). In six days
everything was re-constructed (Gen.1:2ff.). But everything had originally
already been created in a moment of time (Gen.1:1).
In Genesis 1:2 the earth is described as being in existence; that means that
Genesis 1:1 has to be original creation; now we are left to understand a damaged
and darkened earth in Genesis 1:2. Impossible without the rebellion of Satan,
the judgment of God, and the Genesis gap, pace YECs.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #12:
Hi Dr, I hope all is well with you and your family. This week emails are
interesting and one word came to mind after reading about dinosaurs
which I have read already in some of your previous postings including
their potential origin in SR series.
Beauty. The Lord's creation is beautiful. Have you ever looked at
prehistoric animals or hominids, compare to our current life form? You
might have some creatures that look strange but overall all life form
the Lord created during his recreation of earth in Genesis is beautiful.
Dinosaurs to me all look the same and it seems the species are trying to
compensate for something. They are all rather large and and most have
similar features such as gigantic teeth, etc.
I know it is not an important point but I believe somewhat critical to
view the complexity of what our Lord creates and its beauty and all
other counterfeits.
The most beautiful thing is a born again human. Satan can't top that
Good work. In Christ Jesus our Lord
Response #12:
Very good observations, my friend! I'll post this the next time out on
this topic (that will be quite a while now at this point, however).
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #13:
Ok I'm sorry. I want to ask a few more things before I leave. I know
your a very busy and all but your answers are so very helpful to me.
This should be it for me after this as I have nothing else to ask. Do
you think it was possible dinosaurs were on the ark? I know you have
links on this but what stumps me is that if dinosaurs were genetic
mutations "prior" to the gap and no longer existed after the gap or re
creation of the earth took place, how is it we find fossils to begin
with? This might be a stupid question, so pardon me for that, and I am
aware that you were just speculating, and I don't disagree per say its
just that I'm a bit confused. Since after its original destruction the
earth was nothing but water and that land had to be recreated, how would
fossils be found when the original Eden was destroyed and land didn't
exist again until God declared it in the 7 days of creation? Again,
pardon if it's a dumb question as I'm probably just not seeing
something.
Some tribal people across the world claim that some dinosaurs may still
be alive. I don't agree or disagree per say and am well aware of the
many hoaxes and or misidentifications out there. But there are quite a
few number of reported sightings some very convincing. Cryptids like
mokele mbembe and kongamato are the most popular out of the few. Where
would you settle your opinion on this matter? Like, what if somebody did
actually discover a living dinosaur?
Finally, I'm just curious, but have you heard of the short documentary
entitled "In Search of the Real Mt. Sinai"? If so, what did you think of
it.
I appreciate your time and patience. In Christ
Response #13:
No need to apologize, my friend. Feel free to write me any time. To take your
questions in reverse order:
3) I've not seen the documentary; given what I know of "the search for" genre of
literature and media, I would be reluctant to believe anything I heard from such
a source.
2) If creatures some want to call dinosaurs do actually exist, whatever it is
that "still exists" I would not want to call a "dinosaur", because by that name
we mean extinct creatures that existed many eons ago, before the Genesis gap, in
biblical terms.
1) Dinosaurs along with all other flora and fauna were destroyed when the
original universe was judged on account of Satan's revolt. It was plunged into
darkness and submerged in the cosmic deep. However, the physical earth was not
annihilated and so did not need to be created anew on day one of the seven days;
the earth had already been created, along with the heavens, in verse one of
Genesis chapter one. What happens on day one of the seven days is a RE-creation,
and the distinction is important. God did not create the earth anew on day one –
at Genesis 1:2 it is in existence, but suffering from the after-effects of
judgment; and God deliberately did not do so, because of His desire to symbolize
His bringing of things back from destruction – symbolic of His bringing us back
from condemnation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Just as we are
spiritually "new" but not physically remade (i.e., we still have the physical
imperfections and characteristics we had before our spiritual "new birth"), so
the earth was reborn from devastation, but it was still the same earth – and so
would still have the same essential physical make up, with fossilized remains
preserved from that earlier time. In short, the Genesis gap actually explains
the fossil record; all other interpretations fall short in this regard. That is
not why I am a believer in the Genesis gap, however (it's just an added benefit
of the truth as the truth often provides added benefits); I believe in the
Genesis gap because it is clear taught in the first two verses of the Bible – as
well as elsewhere.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Every once in a while when I encounter a form of art or a creation I particularly enjoy, I start to idolize the creator of that piece. I wonder, "wow, just what goodness and wisdom is in him for creating this..."
But shouldn't this be the same for the cosmos we live in? Shouldn't our love and appreciation of the cosmos consequently result in a greater love and appreciation of the creator of it?
Response #14:
An excellent point – the greatness and goodness of God shouts from the heavens, but most of sinful humanity has hardened their hearts and blinded their eyes and shut their ears to that glorious cry.
Question #15:
Hi Bob,
A common, extremely anti-scientific notion by atheists is this:
We know that inorganic matter can form crystals, which are highly organized,
without an intelligence behind it. So why can’t the same be true for life?
However, the atheist is ignorant of how the second law of thermodynamics works.
Crystals form because the formation of crystals releases heat, and when the
temperature is low enough the release of heat increases the entropy more than if
the crystals were not to form. This is why there exists a point called “freezing
point” for water. It is the temperature where the release of heat from ice
crystals increases the entropy more than the surrounding temperature.
On the other hand, having amino acids spontaneously come together into D.N.A. or
R.N.A. does not release energy at any temperature, and so consequently can
never, ever happen. It cannot happen in a googolplex of years, and is the
simplest reason why abiogenesis is pseudoscience. The only way the atheist can
get what he wants is if new physics emerges showing that amino acids coming
together into D.N.A. releases heat.
Sincerely,
Response #15:
I've always felt that the law of entropy guaranteed that evolution was
impossible – as considered from science's own canons.
In Jesus our dear Lord,
Bob L.
Question #16:
You are correct that the second law makes evolution impossible…unless the
evolutionist can prove that evolving releases heat (and it does not: evolution,
if it were real, would be an endothermic process, not an exothermic).
Most evolutionists ignore abiogenesis and assume that if you give them a single
cell and billions of years you can get a human being or some other rational,
higher-order form a life. So let’s grant them that: you have a single cellular
organism that has asexually reproduced to cover the entire Earth. Let’s even
grant them that these cells can become specialized and form together to form
“proto-organs.” But evolution from these cells into a human being, even by
natural selection, is still impossible. However, to explain why requires some
mathematical physics.
A macrostate is the end result. If you have a collection of cells, a macrostate
would be those collection of cells forming together to form a human being. A
smaller macrostate would be those collection of cells forming together to form
an organ such as a heart or a liver.
The set of microstates of a macrostate is is the set of all combinations that
result in that specific macrostate. So the microstates of a human being are all
the possible ways those cells could combine together to form a human being.
The entropy of a macrostate, then, is the natural logarithm of the number of
microstates. (Sorry, there’s math!) The entropy of a very multicellular organism
such as a human being is enormous. But imagine if you were to take apart each
skin cell, each nerve cell, each blood cell of a human being, and put them in a
big box. How many combinations could result in the macrostate of an
agglomeration of cells? The entropy of the macrostate of an agglomeration of
cells is much, much, much greater than the entropy of a human being. So to go
from a big pile of cells to a human being requires an enormous decrease in
entropy.
The second law of thermodynamics states that you can have such a massive
decrease in entropy… but only if the amount of heat released by the process
balances out the decrease in entropy. And if the process requires both heat and
a reduction in entropy, then the process is impossible.
So life is impossible by natural laws. Only something outside natural laws could
create life. Atheism is true only if the universe is irrational and chaotic.
Atheism makes sense in Homer’s Greece where the gods sprang forth from “chaos”
and thus there are no natural laws that apply regularly. But it does not make
sense in the normal world.
Response #16:
Thanks. Some important links:
The problem of science and the Bible
Charles Hodge and Charles Darwin
Is the earth ever described as round in the Bible?
Question #17:
A thought occurred to me as I've been now listening to Curt's lesson on creation. God says "it was good" after completing subsequent stages of the creation. Since He is omniscient and knows what would happen before it happens, I always found these proclamations hard to understand. God knows what He is about to create and knows that it will be good - so why does He say it? I thought that a way to explain it might be by bringing restoration into equation here. Since God's original creation was good and Satanic Rebellion incurred a judgment which plunged the world into darkness, it seems that it makes sense for God to say "and He saw that it was good", since things were not good before this restoration has begun. We could almost say "and He saw that it was good (again)". What do you think?
Response #17:
Excellent point! That goes hand in hand with the truth that darkness, which is where the restoration begins, is by definition "not good" . . . because God is Light. An excellent further support for the Genesis gap and the Lord's restoration of life in the six days following judgment on evil rather than the six days representing original creation.
Question #18:
Here are some more biblical questions:
1. In Joshua 5:11-13, the manna stopped flowing after the Passover prior to them
overtaking Jericho. Is there a significance on why the manna stopped after the
Passover. I knew they ate of the land, is that the reason why. They no longer
needed God's provision and how does it correlate with the Passover, in terms of
symbolism?
2. When the children of Israel shouted and the wall fell down in Jericho, i know
scripture doesn't state what they shouted but can you ascertain what it could
be. It could be the shema (Deut 6:4) " Hear O Israel. The Lord is our God, the
Lord is one.
Thank you.
In Christ Jesus our Lord
Response #18:
On Joshua 5:11-13, there are times for the overtly miraculous, and there are
times for faith. In the early days of the Church, there was a time for
spectacular and portentous miracles, but now is the time for faith. The children
of Israel could never have survived in the desert without the overt supernatural
provision of the Lord, and He gave them food and drink and other things during
that time in an openly miraculous way (manna, water from the Rock, clothing
never wearing out, etc.), not to mention the miracles of the exodus and at the
Red Sea, His appearances at Mt. Sinai and pillar of fire and smoke over the
tabernacle, etc. I would note, however, that that generation for all the wonders
they saw never trusted Him completely and were quick to let these things slip
from their hearts. The presence or absence of miracles and the like is not the
key factor; faith is the key factor. The Lord also gave the generation entering
the land miracles (as in stopping the flow of the Jordan, the walls falling at
Jericho and in their miraculous victories over their enemies). They seem to have
behaved marginally better than their forefathers but were still not without
fault (Baal of Peor, Achan, the Gibeonites, etc.). But, yes, once they were able
to survive and thrive without the miraculous provision of food and water et al.,
it was time for a change . . . to a regime of faith. So in my view the Passover
is not the event that brings the change but tells us the precise time of the
year when this happened. Symbolically, entering into the land (symbolic of our
eternal inheritance) follows directly after faith in Christ (which Passover
symbolizes, eating the lamb representing faith in Him).
As to what was shouted, there is no way to know since scripture does not say.
All scripture says is that they were to shout (ru'ah can be "raise a
battle cry" but it is generic), and in my view this shout probably did not
consist of words at all. The point being that God had all this in hand and the
victory wasn't dependent on a prayer or a form of a prayer – it was a total
grace gift.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #19:
"Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, 'Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!' So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plow points, mattocks, axes and sickles sharpened. The price was two-thirds of a shekel for sharpening plow points and mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening forks and axes and for repointing goads"
1 Samuel 13:19-21
1. Why did the Philistines consent to arming their enemies?
2. How expensive was the price given?
Response #19:
We are talking about iron implements here. The price charged by the Philistine blacksmiths was exorbitant. A "pim" or two thirds of a shekel, is something around 100 grams which is somewhere around $100.00 today; since silver is historically depressed and had a greater relative value in antiquity we should at least double or triple this approximate figure (cf. Driver Samuel, 105: "the price stated seems incredibly high"). Now anyone who has been a boy scout or has any experience in the woods will understand that sharpening a steel ax (not to say an iron one) doesn't require any great skill or technological devices. That can be done with a whet stone (hard to believe that a whole nation which lived as farmers and shepherds didn't know something about rocks) or by another piece of steel (iron). So why in the world would a cash poor Hebrew farmer make a long journey to the Philistines to pay a goodly portion of his annual income to do something he could do easily enough himself? You would think all this would cause translators/translations to think twice about this interpretation. Sadly not, it appears (from a perusal of the major versions finds them all similar). Additionally, the verses which set up verse twenty one say that the Philistine reasoning is to keep the Hebrews from making swords/spears. Not even being able to get them sharpened without breaking the bank would seem to be major motivation for some enterprising person to import the technology or at least find another way to import the product. Obviously there is a problem here (with the traditional translations). The Hebrew verb translated universally as "sharpen" in verse twenty is latash, and here is its first use in scripture:
Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger (lotesh) of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
Genesis 4:22 ESV
The verb means "to forge", and of course the technology required to produce iron
was more sophisticated than that necessary for bronze (super-heating the ovens
far past the temperature that more common pottery kilns could produce, among
other things). The time referred to in our passage is the early iron age of the
Mediterranean littoral (ca. 1000 B.C.), and it is understandable that the
Philistines, sea people that they were, had picked this technology up from
others. Iron weapons gave their possessors a huge advantage (the Dorians were
thought by earlier scholars to owe their success in overthrowing the Mycenaean
civilization in part to this, and I still am not willing to toss this
interpretation out).
Whenever a civilization develops superior weapons, they face a dilemma.
Obviously, the greater the infrastructure to produce them, the more potentially
powerful your people becomes; but since there is a limit to how much of the
stuff you yourselves can profitably use, what to do with the surplus? Krupp sold
cannons to almost all comers – even likely potential enemies of Germany – for
just this reason (or at least that was the rationale that got them export
licenses from a skeptical government). And we see the same sort of dilemma
today. This is where the ploy of "no dual use" comes in. It is perhaps a fiction
that one can sell sophisticated materials to adversaries and not be bitten in
the behind by them later – as in Boeing selling transport aircraft to Iran for
"civilian use" (which are now carrying troops and military supplies to Assad),
but in the case of the Philistines they seem to have hit a good balance, at
least temporarily. It was decided only to sell agricultural implements and not
weapons of war. This had two advantages: 1) by exporting iron implements they
had more smithies available for when that might be needed (and this had a
prosperity overflow no doubt to everyone else); 2) they satisfied the Hebrews
demand for these implements at a reasonable enough price (see next para.) that
they undercut any incipient blacksmith operations in Israel (where novice
startups would certainly have to charge much more before their skill developed,
before they had a good supply of ore, and before they had the volume to
compete).
So we are talking here about the Hebrews buying iron implements,
not sharpening them. After all, why should it cost so much more to sharpen a
plowshare than an ax? But the concave part of the plowshare (it was only the tip
of the wooden plow that was metal in antiquity, not the whole device) is no
doubt more difficult to forge than a simple, flat blade. Axes and iron
implements were expensive in the ancient world generally (cf. Elijah making the
ax head float, important because it was an enormous loss even all those years
later: 2Ki.6:5). These implements are "pricey" in our context, but within range,
and just enough so as to make competition unlikely.
I think part of the reluctance to see this all for what it is has to do with the
phrasing "went down each man to forge his plowshare . . ."; I would translate
"to have his plowshare forged". This is really quite understandable. In these
early days it's not as if your average smithy would have inventory lying about.
Everything was "made to order".
There are other textual and vocabulary issues in this passage but I hope this
helps give you the general idea of what was really going on.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Hi Bob,
I am taking down my blog because the title, "God's Philosopher," casts
way too positive of a light on philosophy. The original idea was that it
would be a blog that focused on natural revelation and reason, and I
figured that "philosophy" was the field that was closest to that, but I
was incredibly mistaken. The field that is closest to that is science.
Have you ever noticed that whenever a field in philosophy starts
acquiring actual knowledge, it stops becoming philosophy and starts
becoming an actual field of study? When Pythagoras lived, mathematics
was philosophy. Pythagoras went nowhere and even set back progress by
denying the existence of irrational numbers. It wasn't until Euclid
published The Elements that mathematics became an actual field of study,
but then it stopped being philosophy. Similarly, when the Stoics lived
psychology was philosophy, but the Stoics went nowhere with it and even
set it back by not offering specific therapy sessions or investigating
which therapeutic approaches worked and which ones didn't. It wasn't
until the mid-20th century when psychologists developed
cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychiatrists drug-based treatment that
Stoic therapy moved out of philosophy and into the realm of science.
So I am going to formulate the following law, that is not unlike the
well-known "Peter principle" in management: once any area of philosophy
starts acquiring truth, it stops being philosophy, so therefore the only
way for an area of study to remain being philosophy is if it either has
no truth whatsoever or such a minuscule amount of truth so as to remain
unnoticed. Therefore philosophy is worthless.
Here is another fair question: has science gone off the rails? In other
words, have scientists stopped investigating nature and started using it
to espouse some weird religion?
The answer is yes. This is probably obvious to you (and it was also to
me), but it became even more obvious to me when I started looking at how
modern scientific methodology works. Here is an example regarding the
analysis of studies demonstrating the effectiveness of the Ketogenic
Diet in controlling epilepsy:
"One reason [older studies of the Ketogenic diet are hard to compare
with newer ones] is that these older trials suffered from selection
bias, as they excluded patients who were unable to start or maintain the
diet and thereby selected from patients who would generate better
results." ~ Wikipedia
Suppose therapy A is extremely effective but difficult to maintain,
while therapy B is very easy to maintain but only mildly effective. If
drop outs are included in the overall study, it may look like therapy B
is more effective than therapy A, when in reality therapy A is more
effective. This is an enormous hole in the design of experiments, and
yet the modern scientific community is more interested in keeping things
the same than addressing this problem. For years we have told people to
eat grains, carbs and starches by means of the abomination that is the
food pyramid, but in reality those three "staples" are probably the
worst possible things you could feed your brain.
Response #20:
Thanks for this. How about margarine instead of butter as dogma – then it turns
out fifty years later that hydrogenated oils are a hundred times worse for your
circulatory system than saturated fats! I've long taken all these pronouncements
with a grain of salt – literally. A measure of common sense would seem to be
superior to all such "findings".
Probably the thing that bugs me about all this sort of thing is how when the
"findings" are released they are immediately dogma, then, when found to be
wrong, science and the media go through an Orwellian shredding of the old as
fast as they deify the new. If only science were acknowledged as an
ever-changing search for the facts which will never get to full knowledge, that
trace of humility would do everyone good.
Sorry about the blog, but I see your point. I do think you have a lot to say,
and you're getting more refined about what and how day by day – so this is part
of a process. I'm looking forward to the website.
Keep fighting the good fight my friend!
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #21:
Hi Bob,
Consequentialism is the belief that the morality of any action depends on the
end result. The Truman Administration's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki
was an excellent example of consequentialist reasoning in action (the killing of
200,000 or so innocents would prevent the killing of millions of soldiers, so
therefore it is morally justified). It also gives a tiny glimpse of how the
world would look like if everyone were a consequentialist. Don't let anyone tell
you that philosophy is unimportant again.
Traditionally, most philosophers have seen the justice of Jesus Christ's
substitutionary death as wonderful and good, but considered the problem of evil
to be serious and hard to answer. That's because most philosophers were not
consequentialists, it being a very modern theory after all.
However, if consequentialism is true, the exact reverse happens: the problem of
evil becomes extremely easy and trivial to answer (God could just prove that the
suffering in the world results in a greater good, and it would immediately
become justified like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are [I am using Consequentialist
logic here]), but the justice of the atonement of Jesus Christ comes into
question. If consequentialism is true, then the debt to God cannot be satisfied
unless the consequences of the sins are erased also. A consequentialist
Christian, if such a being could even exist, would say that his sins are not
forgiven until the New Jerusalem arrives and all the (evil) consequences of sins
are done away with, which contradicts the fundamental doctrine of the Book of
Romans that Christ made us legally justified and legally righteous. Even more
importantly, the substitution of moral debt onto Christ (like a cosigner of a
loan) is completely impossible.
Sincerely,
Response #21:
Blessedly, I don't know any Bible verses that suggest such a view even be
considered. This is the difference between traditional theology – which is a lot
like traditional philosophy – and studying the Bible.
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.