Intelligent Design,Evolution & Creation,Bible & Science,Christian apologetics,Christianity,Jesus Christ
 
  Beyond a Shadow Chapters 10 through 12
Home PageIntroductionBibliographyContentsChapters 1-5Chapters 6-9Chapters 13-19William BrugmanE-Mail UsLinksBook SummaryArticles

CHAPTER 10

 

LAW AND ORDER

 

Archaeology and textual criticism are objective, scholarly disciplines that confirm the authenticity of a large portion of scripture but the Bible also gains credibility through some of its subjective attributes.  For example, its overall message of forgiveness and eternal life through submission to the moral authority of Jesus Christ has been dramatically transforming lives by the millions for centuries.

The world is filled with people who have been delivered from the oppressive constraints of apathetic and purposeless lives, depression, criminal behavior, various addictions, broken relationships, insecurity or mental illness.  The ranks of those whose grapple with existence has been eased includes the obviously destitute, but not exclusively, as those ranks also include "successful" people from all walks of life who claim they were positively and permanently changed by the “Word” of God.

Although all warranties expire at the cemetery, some relief from the ravages of civilization on the human psyche has been offered by practitioners in the fields of psychiatry, psychology, religion, and self-realization. If the entire human race were polled, however, not one person would claim that they experienced instantaneous and permanent deliverance from some overwhelming burden by sitting in a psychiatrist’s office, taking a pill, attending an AA meeting, reading a self-realization hand-book or joining a church.  Yet that is exactly what “born-again” Christians vociferously maintain happened to them.  How could words in a book accomplish something so climactic and unique?  Christians say that anyone believing and acting on the words of the Bible will experience an encounter of deep spiritual significance and that this encounter is the root cause of their transformation. Read the following scripture.

"And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him: for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." John 14:16,17

This passage is just one of many explaining that belief in the Son of God as portrayed in the Bible brings about some type of individual experience with the supernatural, in this case the “Holy Spirit”.  Christians say this experience is the spontaneous process of becoming intimate with a personality of overwhelming influence.  Historians say that “personality”, Jesus Christ, is a religious prophet from antiquity and allude to His role as the initiator of the Christian religion, but His followers do not think of Him that way.  Rather than thinking of Jesus the way Americans think of George Washington, as a founder, they say He lives, and that they have some sort of ongoing relationship with Him.  But if His power to influence individual members of the human race is no greater than any other dead man, or He is simply the product of an ancient myth and never existed, as some skeptics maintain, then millions of people all over the world are suffering from a massive delusion as to the status of this person.  They believe He is alive and has a continuing dynamic effect on their lives as opposed to being just another inspirational, but deceased, role model.  

This puts skeptics in a quandary.  How could a mass delusion of this sort perpetuate itself for thousands of years and infect millions of people who seem to be normal in all other respects?  They are holding jobs, raising families and are generally as productive as other members of their particular society.  And let us not brush this off as a mild neurosis of some sort.  People who say they have a relationship with a dead person are seriously unbalanced.  If they said they were interacting with Abraham Lincoln or Napoleon, we wouldn't turn our backs on them.  But despite the implausibility of a theory postulating that mass emotional hysteria has, for centuries, caused millions of culturally normal members of the population to claim that they have a relationship with a dead man, skeptics so adamantly insist that Jesus Christ could not be alive that a social psychosis of this sort is what they offer as an explanation for the phenomena, supposedly for scientific reasons.  They say science proves that a miracle, such as the resurrection of a man from the dead, cannot occur. So we are again confronted with the skeptical presupposition that the supernatural does not exist, although a mass psychosis of the type they propose has no historical parallel and cannot be rationally explained according to known scientific principles.  That being the case, it is irrational to conclude that millions of people are identically deluded, but instead, reasonable to consider the born again experience evidence for the Bible’s credibility. It is another instance where a prediction made in the Bible, in this case a prediction describing specific cognitive effects that God will have on individual men under certain circumstances, is fulfilled exactly as predicted. 

Of course when confronted with this, skeptics quickly shift gears and say the spiritual epiphany described by Christians results from cultural indoctrination.  They forget that the phenomena had its beginnings with grown men who said they began their relationship with Jesus Christ while living in a society that not only damned them for their new beliefs but executed the object of those beliefs, Jesus Christ, because He had fervently indicted their religious culture as hypocritical.

So neither will cultural indoctrination suffice as an explanation for the phenomena.  Cultural indoctrination into a religious system occurs but it is an ongoing process beginning in childhood and continuing throughout one's lifetime.  Fervent Christians, including the very first ones, generally claim their experience began at a specific point in time and that it overturned everything their culture taught them to believe.

The typical response Christians meet when telling their  story of a supernatural encounter during their conversion is skepticism.  The “experience” is written off as an emotional response to some crisis in life.  They were looking for a “crutch” to lean on and Christianity filled the need. But how could an all encompassing “new leaf" remain turned for the balance of an entire life if only sustained by mere emotion? Something tangible must be present in order to nourish the mental and spiritual commitment manifested by Christians, and they will tell you it is the interaction of their very soul with that of a “person” known to them as Jesus Christ.    

We must keep in mind that Christians do not claim to be adherents to the teachings of some ancient prophet, as do members of the world's other major religions, but are boldly claiming to know Jesus Christ. They are alleging to know Him in the same way people say they know someone with whom they intimately share life. They say their "introduction" to Him deeply and profoundly affected their lives and liken it to beginning a brand new existence.

So without independently testing the truth of declarations made by Christians that Christ is alive and available for an introduction, we must admit there is no valid reason to simply dismiss the assertions of millions of people for two millennia.  Open mindedness, the mental state we seek in our search for truth, dictates that we at least take a close look at the book revealing this supposed personal relationship between men and the "Son of God”.  That is exactly what we are doing and if that book appears to be credible, we can find out for ourselves if there is any truth to the allegation that we have an opportunity to literally meet and become spiritually intimate with a man who claimed to be divine.  In the meantime, we can ask if there is other subjective evidence for the Bible’s credibility, and there is.

According to Christians, the primary by-product of the instantaneous transformation in their lives is peace of mind through the assurance of eternal life in the presence of God.  From a rational perspective though, the assurance Christians talk about is difficult to grasp. How can anyone know for sure about eternal salvation if there is no way to peek beyond the grave?  The Bible guarantees assurance through the presence of the Spirit of God.  Following are several scriptures describing the nature of that presence.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name." John 1:12

  The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself..." 1 John 5:10

"These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life." 1 John 5:13

 "Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge." 2 Corinthians 1:21-22

"In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise..." Ephesians 1:13

These scriptures make the author’s intention clear.  He obviously wants those who accept the Bible’s message of submission to Christ's authority to be assured of the promises accompanying that submission.  The evidence supporting the fact that his stated intent has been realized is, again, the existence of millions of believers who claim to possess that assurance.

The Bible makes a bold statement that a certain phenomena will occur and makes good on its promise.  We are seeing an area where this book evidences tremendous credibility, the vow to initiate and maintain a particular mind-set in the lives of certain people, that mind-set being confidence in ones eternal future, and the fulfillment of that vow.

This mind set is part and parcel of the “Christian transformation” we have been referring to and, according to Christians, must have at its foundation the recognition of personal moral depravity and the sincere desire to obey God's revealed standard of morality.  It was put this way in the Book of James.

"Therefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath, for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.  Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.  But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves."  James 1:19-22

James writes about the “righteousness of God” but can we be sure that the Bible's standard of “righteousness” is different from the ethics of mere men?  And if so, does that difference illuminate it as uniquely and divinely inspired as opposed to other forms of law like the ancient code of Hammurabi or the common law of England?  What sets the Bible apart from these and other standards of human behavior, or makes its standard any loftier?

 It embodies the only known system of law containing a claim of divine origin whose primary command is to “love” and devote oneself unconditionally to God, the originator of that law, as well as other men. The concept of love as the scale upon which all moral judgments and motives are weighed sets the Bible apart and makes it unique in the body of ethics and the rules of social behavior as historically practiced by mankind. But in order to determine if that distinctiveness provides any confidence in the Bible as being divinely revealed, we must analyze and understand how and why moral codes originate to begin with.

There is the naturalist view and, of course, it is based on the presupposition that naturalism explains life’s origin and that Darwinian evolution explains the ultimate arrival of morality through mankind.  Naturalists believe all moral codes, including the Bible’s, originated solely within the mind of man over time according to principals of natural selection, that moral codes are a survival mechanism for societies and appear late in earth’s history because societies themselves appear late in earth’s history.  They say moral codes forbidding murder and theft, for example, by levying punishment upon the individual guilty of violating any such code, protect the social order and promote survival of the species.  It sounds plausible except that upon analysis, it seems that naturalists have overlooked what appears to be an inherent trait within our species, the conscience.

The conscience is an inner itch making us feel irritatingly uneasy when we have failed to do the right thing, which is a vastly different concept than feeling guilt because of an overt legal infraction.  A dog will display guilt after urinating on the carpet but is completely incapable of feeling guilt for failing to share its food with a neighbor’s puppy. That brand of moral sensitivity is reserved for mankind, a species created in the image of a God who, according to the Bible, says we should love our neighbors. The sweeping presence of this altruistic sixth sense within our species is difficult to reconcile if our appearance on earth was driven by natural selection, that is, survival of the fittest.

We suspect that the occasional moral uneasiness we feel is something more than a learned response to impending punishment, as in the case of a dog who knows it has misbehaved, because it surfaces even when we haven't done something “illegal”.  Maybe we gloated at someone's misfortune or broke a promise or passed by someone in need, ignoring his plight because we were too busy.  Maybe we lied about our busy schedule to someone who was really looking forward to seeing us.  In any case, human beings are distressingly subject to the awareness that selfishness is subtle moral erosion, that self-indulgence is wrong. But if egocentric behavior is not prohibited and we are judicially “innocent”, why does it bother us?  Probably because there has been an ethical or moral transgression and our conscience has served as judge and jury.  As moral creatures, we have the ability to recognize right and wrong and when we fail to do what is right, we know it.  Just because we haven't violated one of society’s laws, which change with the wind, it doesn't necessarily follow that a law hasn't been broken.  One probably has, our Creator's.

In fact, the very concept of right and wrong or good and evil is nonsense if we are products of naturalist evolution and posses no more of the “spirit” of God than sharks, wolves or hawks.  It would be ludicrous to brand one of these creatures “evil” or “guilty” for eating a neighbor’s infant and killing its parent for interfering.  It would be equally absurd to expect those creatures, our supposed kinfolk, to behave in a “virtuous” manner by “mercifully” sparing the life of a competitor for food, concepts incompatible with a pure survival instinct.  Abstractions such as generosity, mercy and self-sacrifice manifest themselves significantly only in the human species, and very often in the midst of tragedies like genocide, famine or plague when those “evils” would actually assist the survival of modern man if they were promoted or allowed to run their course.  There is obvious agreement between vastly differing cultures that such things are bad and that to eliminate them is good, meaning there is universal agreement as to what mankind’s moral sixth sense perceives as worthy or corrupt. 

The human conscience, the desire for virtue by men of all races, the ubiquitous recognition of the very concept of evil - these realities fit far more easily into the model of a universe populated by an innately moral species created by an innately moral God.  A naturalist would say guilt associated with the failure to be virtuous is a learned response to a specific cultural ethical standard. But the question is, how could virtue become a cross-cultural universal goal within a species whose primary instinct was simply to survive?

 We assume a creator because of the scientific evidence and further assume he provided us with a conscience because its presence is incompatible with naturalist dogma.  It is responsible for our development as the only morally concerned species on earth.  The primary result of that development is our concept of law.  Because we are moral beings, we establish laws governing behavior and administer punishment to those who violate those laws. We consider punishment suiting the crime to be just and the administration of justice to be a virtue. When a law has been broken, guilt is determined. The matter of guilt is sometimes in question but once that determination is made, there is never a question of whether or not punishment is warranted.  It is always the consequence of guilt or justice could not be served.

We establish laws, determine guilt and punish offenders because that is what moral beings do.  A fair inference would be that the judicial parameters regulating the moral standard of a moral God who had created moral beings would be similar to his creatures, only perfect.  The supposition would be that when God’s standard has been breached, guilt is imputed and justice must be administered.  Why would it be otherwise?  Let’s explore the possibility a little further.

Our Creator, as a moral being, must define the basic attributes of righteousness and we would expect that he gave us the ability to recognize the truth of those attributes by exercising our powers of perception as logically thinking moral beings.  A hypothetical conversation between two theists, we will call them Goodman and Smudge, will help us in that endeavor.

Over coffee, they agree that people must be good to avoid the consequences of justice meted out by a moral God.  Goodman says he's good and that he will be spared on that basis.  He defends his goodness by saying such things as, "I really don't hurt anyone; I only stole a candy bar when I was a kid; I do not dwell on bad things in my mind; I am sincerely sorry when I slip up", and so forth.

Smudge, on the other hand, says he's not good at all and accordingly will reap the consequences of his corrupt moral status.  Goodman is intrigued and asks Smudge why he thinks of himself as not good. Smudge puzzles Goodman by describing a life style identical to Goodman’s and so the two men find themselves impaled on the horns of a dilemma.  Their behavior seems to be similar but one feels he is good and the other feels he is not good. Obviously, one of them is wrong. (The dilemma they confront represents the problem created by the mass of conflicting moral systems imposed upon us by various societies. Where does the truth lie?)

They pursue the matter a little further. They decide the problem is rooted in their definition of good, so they look it up in Webster's. Webster says good means "morally excellent." Immediately they realize "good" can be defined relatively or absolutely.  In other words, they recognize that something may be thought of as perfectly good or partially good.  An "A" on a math exam would be considered excellent but if the "A" was achieved because of a score of 95%, it wasn't a perfect "A". Smudge admits that he defines good as perfectly good and thinks his theft of a candy bar disqualifies him from being perfectly good because the theft was a moral flaw and he points out that Webster's definition of perfect is a "flawless condition".

Goodman takes a different approach. He analyzes the situation and sees his options. He realizes that his claim to goodness is based upon a preponderance of what he considers as goodness outweighing a minimal presence of badness.  He also recognizes that he's not perfectly good but says he's good based on a grade of 95%, or so, and that's not a problem for him as he thinks a grade of 95% will enable him to avoid judgment. He defines good as being more good than bad and says Smudge is actually good but is mistaken about the meaning of good.

They talk some more and Goodman agrees that perfect, as a concept, is valid. He agrees that the equation (.5x = x/2) is an example of a perfect concept but points out that perfection can also be relative to the situation. "A glass of water tainted with a little dust may be perfect for quenching a parched throat, but not for a lab experiment," says Goodman. They finally agree that their concepts of good and bad are both valid, but in terms of the requirement for perfect justice to be executed, maybe not.  If 95% good is acceptable, then Goodman has a chance to avoid the just hand of God, and so does Smudge. 

But Smudge challenges Goodman by insisting that perfect goodness is a requirement for avoiding judgment.  He says, "If perfection is valid as a concept, then God, as the ultimate of all concepts, must be morally perfect and if God is morally perfect, He must be perfectly just and a perfectly just God could not allow His code to be violated at all without exercising judgment.  If He did, it would violate His perfect nature. So the idea that a perfect God would allow morally flawed people to escape judgment is folly.  If He did, He would be imperfect and might even allow evil to go unpunished, or change His mind about who is good or bad, and if that were the case, why bother trying to get a good grade? Or maybe He doesn't exist at all and so again, why bother trying to get a good grade?  In fact, because we're not morally perfect and the only scenario that makes sense is a perfect God allowing only morally perfect beings to escape judgment, why bother striving for a good grade?  The pursuit of virtue is ultimately futile.  We should exercise cunning, viciousness and greed in order to take advantage of every pleasure we can, no matter how perverse, while we're here."

Goodman scratches his head, wondering why Smudge even makes a modest effort to be good if he feels that way, and then says he's perfect in God's eyes because he will be judged by God for his motives, which are basically good.  Smudge agrees that goodness and badness can only be judged by motive, that the outside act has nothing whatsoever to do with goodness or badness, and gives Goodman an example. He says a knife cutting flesh in surgery is a morally neutral act until the motive is discovered. If the knife is being wielded as compassionate surgery, it's good.  If the surgeon is trying to earn extra money to support his obsession for child pornography, it's bad. Goodman sees the point, that all deeds must be traced back to their motives to be qualified as good or bad and concedes that because he has been influenced by “less than ideal” motives at times, he may not be perfect, especially in God's eyes. He agrees it's no use trying to achieve perfection, as he can never totally avoid being influenced by ulterior motives.  Goodman starts fidgeting and actually becomes indignant. He asks Smudge why, if no one is perfect, should anyone be singled out and judged by God?  It doesn’t seem fair.  At this point he goes off on a tangent and warns Smudge that if he continues to think of himself as bad, it will simply cause him to experience guilt, which is not only uncomfortable but damaging to his self-esteem.

At the mention of the word guilt Smudge becomes serious.  He says guilt is like pain, a warning mechanism, and that masking guilt with self-imposed self-esteem is like taking pain killers for a hernia.  It may mask the pain so well the hernia is ignored and gets worse.  Smudge continues and makes Goodman feel really bad. He says,

"As long as you've broached the subject of guilt, consider this.  Not only are impure motives and deeds moral flaws causing imperfect moral status and disqualifying one from being considered good, they are transgressions of a perfect moral code and convey forever the status of guilt on the transgressor."

He asks Goodman what is the best course of action for a guilty man to take when standing before a judge.  Goodman walks away shaking his head and mumbling and does not even hear Smudge answer his own question. “Plead guilty and ask for mercy”, says Smudge.

If God exists, and from what we have seen in previous chapters it would appear that He does, it seems extremely difficult to avoid what Smudge insinuated. Based simply upon our morally perceptive intuitiveness, we exist in a universe governed by a perfectly just administrator with all the implications thereof.  But what Smudge failed to mention was that perfect justice could only be served if the moral code of God had been revealed to men, otherwise how could God justly hold men responsible for failing to live up to the code? How could we punish one of our children for eating all the cookies if we had never told the child it was wrong?  The Bible claims to be the unique revelation of God’s moral standard, to which we will be held accountable.  It further asserts that the standard is perfect, that all men are imperfect, that they are incapable of upholding it, that they have knowingly and willingly transgressed the standard and have ultimately set up their own.

If that be the case, then the Bible’s moral gauge may be considered subjective evidence for its overall credibility if that gauge directly corresponds with our intuitive moral instinct, is supremely unique in comparison to moral standards initiated by men, and society in general mirrors what the Bible asserts to be the moral state of men.  

So what is the biblical standard, God’s law, and how does the Bible specifically describe man in relationship to that law.  The standard is expressed in the Ten Commandments.  They are a list of dos as well as don’ts, meaning there is no escape in isolationism.  They are absolute in their nature and seem to be free of any loop-holes.  And they have never been referred to as the ten suggestions, except by those who would snicker at a firing squad.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS  Exodus 20:1-17

1. You shall have no other Gods before me.

2 You shall not make for yourself any carved image.

3 You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

4 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

5 Honor your father and mother.

6 You shall not murder.

7 You shall not commit adultery.

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not bear false witness.

10.You shall not covet.

 Jesus Christ summed up the spirit of these commandments when he quoted from Deuteronomy and Leviticus in Matthew 22:37 while being questioned by a lawyer.

He said to him, (the lawyer)“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment and the second is like it:  You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 

In the famous “Sermon on the Mount”, also in the Book of Matthew, Christ thoroughly illustrated the requirements for perfect fulfillment of the moral law of God as expressed in His summary of the Ten Commandments. That sermon clearly declares that obedience to the moral imperatives of God is rooted in motive. We are expected to go through life respecting our neighbor’s life, property, honor and welfare above our own.  We are also expected to be thankful to God for the gift of life as sincerely virtuous beings, displaying mercy, empathy, generosity, compassion and humility while restraining the impulse to pursue our own interests. The Bible says that we intuitively know this as a species through our God given moral sense, the conscience. The Bible describes the conscience as a moral law written upon the hearts of men by God.

"who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness..." Romans 2:15

That is why, when confronted with the complete and undiminished moral law of God as revealed through Moses, the prophets and ultimately the messiah, Jesus Christ, we are instinctively aware of its pure and impeccable nature. A little honest reflection tells us we have hopelessly failed if we are measured against the moral standard of the Bible. The existence of a healthy conscience may even stir up a sense of guilt and the desire to pursue virtue.  This, however, is what Paul the Apostle had to say about the overall moral condition of men and their general reaction to the revelation of God.

Romans 1:20-25 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man... and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.  Amen.

Romans:  2:1-3 "Therefore you are without excuse, "every man of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

Romans 3:10-18 “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips: Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet [are] swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery [are] in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

2 Timothy 3:1-7 “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. Men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. This sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

These few scriptures are but a small sampling of a continuing theme appearing from beginning to end within the pages of the Bible.  That theme is the revelation of God’s moral standard to men and their failure to abide by it.  Man’s failure is consistently predicted and subsequently recorded as following one of two courses.  He either becomes religious, editing the perfect, love oriented holy code of God into a worldly miscarriage of rituals and pious attitudes he can outwardly fulfill or he rebels and sets his own standard, also one he can fulfill.  According to the Bible, all of mankind can easily be placed into one or the other of these two categories.  Furthermore, mankind believes that the perfect fulfillment of his moral system, whichever it may be, is inherently within his ability. In other words, he believes he is good according to the standard he practices, whether it be his own or the standard of the world-view to which he claims allegiance.

On the other hand, God’s moral code, as revealed in the Bible, is unique in that it is NOT attainable and CAN NOT be fulfilled by any man. If any man reads Christ’s interpretation of God’s law, noting that lust is considered adultery, the desire for revenge is considered murder, the failure to forgive and the failure to love one’s enemy is a moral transgression, to be charitable other than anonymously is hypocrisy, to pursue wealth is idolatry and even to worry about the future is a breach of trust in God, and that man still claims to be good in light of that law, he is deluded to the level of psychosis or arrogant and sanctimonious beyond comprehension.

Love is the dynamic behind God’s law and is responsible for the extensive chasm between it and man’s ability to fulfill it, as no man is capable of perfect, unconditional love on a continuing basis towards his creator and fellow man. No man could, or would, present such an impossible moral task for himself or his brethren.  But God certainly might, and so we see that simply because of the irreconcilable difference between the biblical moral code itself and the possibility of man’s adherence to it, we can consider that difference to be evidence affirming what the Bible says about itself, that it was inspired by a being other than us, presumably a perfect moral being.

But of course men object, reserving the authority as rational and intelligent social creatures to decide for themselves what is morally right or wrong, regardless of what the Bible says.  Their position, however, that of relying on human ethical systems of behavior to determine what is morally correct, may be eternally risky.  Maybe a message of moral authority and clarity is desperately needed by men naive enough to think that they can change their moral code to fit circumstances and remain aloof from the judgment of God.  Actually, in the absence of absolute moral authority, if men are left to their own devices, legal codes, that is systems ideally designed to protect the rights and lives of the individual, will instead ultimately serve the economic and cultural elite, as evidenced in the world today.

But naturalists and religious liberals, for different reasons, spend much of their time philosophically denying the guilt of an absolute moral God given code.  The worlds of psychiatry and psychology seem to join in this endeavor by promoting the idea that guilt is harmful and should be suppressed.  But the conscience serves a useful purpose and the suppression of its testimony can be devastating, akin to snipping the wires on a fire alarm because the bell is irritating. Both the bell and the conscience were created as a protective mechanism.  Both are intended to warn of danger.  When our conscience says we are guilty and we seek the advice of professionals who appease us, it is the same as a thief seeking vindication for his crimes from his fellow convicts.  They may agree with him but the judge will see it different.

That is the primary reason we need moral authority in our lives.  Without it we tend to seek appeasement for our guilt, which relieves the discomfort it causes but numbs us to the dangerous reality that our guilt will reap consequences if our moral creator is perfectly just.  It may behoove us to reflect on those consequences. The second reason we need moral authority in our lives is that our consciences will ultimately become skewed without it.  It goes without saying that we are imperfect moral creatures as we have all committed moral transgressions. So as imperfect and fundamentally self-serving moral creatures left to our own devices regarding the establishment of ethics and moral standards, we will eventually advance standards that suit our own purposes. Our consciences will become dulled to the unselfish/self-sacrificing virtues we know in our hearts represent true righteousness. Our corporate human standards will deteriorate and become corrupt. The results will be the same as those deriving from the conscious suppression of guilt.  Our consciences will no longer play an active role in preventing us from violating the true standards of righteousness and we will become ignorant and apathetic regarding the status of guilt being heaped upon us.

And further, because we are subject to imperfect and corrupt humanly devised moral standards, we will begin to reject guilt as a natural emotive response to our own behavior.  Subconsciously, we know that the guilt imposed on us by other men is falsely levied, in many cases, because the system from which the guilty verdict is rendered is flawed to begin with.  The suppression of guilt becomes commonplace and acceptable but if the guilt is justified because it results form a violation of God's code, as with men's codes, it will have consequences.

Naturalists deny the guilt of an absolute God given moral code because they deny the source of any such code, a moral God.  Therefore if the rationale for denying an absolute moral code’s existence can be discredited, that should be evidence for the existence of such a code and therefore evidence for the existence of the only being who could have originated it, God.  That is exactly what occurs through the simple exercise of reason in analyzing moral codes in general, and so because we have already digested one moral code represented as absolute and God-given, the Ten Commandments, we will use it as an example.

Consider man as the original source of the Ten Commandments.  It seems strange that Jewish nomads would tolerate the proclamation of laws commanding them, under threat of punishment for disobedience, to worship a God who demonstrated His claim to authority with miracles if there were really no miracles. It is more likely that this particular body of law originated with our maker but skeptics insist otherwise, so let’s consider four possible scenarios if they are not from God.

Either the laws are perfect or they’re not, meaning they are either correct or incorrect as to what is absolutely right or wrong.  Also, man is either perfect or not, meaning he never fails to do what is morally correct or he occasionally fails.

Here then are the four possible scenarios.

1. Man is imperfect and he gave us an imperfect set of moral laws.

2. Man is imperfect and he gave us a perfect system of law.

3. Man is perfect and he originated an imperfect moral code.

4. Man is perfect and the law he legislated is perfect.

Consider them one at a time.

Man, an imperfect moral being, originated them and they are imperfect, presumably because an imperfect being could not originate a morally perfect set of laws.  But to conclude that the Ten Commandments are imperfect, or any moral laws for that matter, regardless of why, presents a problem.  It would mean that the laws are flawed in their presentation of what is truly right and wrong.  A perfect moral law, on the other hand, would distinguish between right and wrong by stating with certainty what is right or wrong.  For the law to be judged imperfect (flawed or incorrect) would be an admission that its imperfection was based upon the existence of a perfect, unflawed and correct moral law.  Nothing can be judged imperfect except in comparison to itself in a state of perfection. To say that a state of perfection for a law is impossible is to say that any law is perfect, in and of itself, as there is no standard with which to compare it.  All laws would be unflawed and valid regardless of their source, including contradictory laws, meaning anarchy and chaos are simply brute conditions not to be rendered either good or bad. In other words, we must conclude that perfect and correct moral laws exist or be honest and abandon forever the pursuit of purpose and meaning. But if perfect moral laws do exist, man couldn’t be the source and couldn’t be trusted to pass judgment on any moral laws because of his imperfection. If perfect moral laws exist, only God could be the source.  Scenario #1 infers that God originated a perfect moral law and its discovery by us will only take place if that law is revealed to us by God. (That, by the way, is one of the reasons we have been looking at the Bible.)

Maybe imperfect man gave us a perfect set of laws by accident.  (Scenario #2)  This is as far-fetched as the accidental origin of life, but if he did and the laws are perfect, then they are true.  We are in trouble because of the first commandment, regardless of where they came from.  Skeptics must discard this scenario immediately because if they are perfect and true, we are obligated to obey them and the first one commands us to worship the God of the Bible.

But maybe man is perfect and he gave us an imperfect set of laws. (scenario #3)  We have already looked at the results of an imperfect set of moral laws.  They are useless and simply witness to the existence of perfect moral laws.  Besides, this is an impossible scenario because a perfect being could not originate an imperfect set of laws without disqualifying his position of perfection.  It is also empty-headed to consider for a second that man is perfect.  Even skeptics will admit we are morally flawed, albeit reluctantly.

Well, maybe they originated with man and they are perfect because man is perfect, the last possibility available unless they are from God.  If that was the case, then man would have the capacity to obey these laws perfectly, him being the perfect author of a perfect set of laws.  We can’t do it and never could.  There hasn’t been an honest man yet who claimed he could, except One.  So far His claims are beyond dispute.  We should examine ourselves and see if we measure up.   Why can't we obey these laws?  Because we are not perfect.  Therefore scenario #4 is invalid.

In drawing the salient points from our reflections on the source of moral absolutes, we must insist that man isn't perfect, a conclusion requiring little defense.  Second, correct moral laws must exist and they are the standard upon which all morality must be compared as to its correctness.  Man can’t be trusted to establish the standard but possibly it's been revealed and the Bible appears to be a likely candidate.  The moral code of God, as revealed by Jesus Christ in his summary and explanation of the moral principals underlying the Ten Commandments, because it speaks so directly to our conscience and because it appears in a credible manuscript claiming to be inspired by our Creator, is more than likely God's law.

To adopt the opposite position is to say moral truth is relative and, as we saw in Chapter 2, that philosophy forces the adherent to live a contradiction.  He says nothing is always wrong but when his life or family are threatened, he will seek protection from the absolute variety of moral law by insisting that murder and rape are the exception to relativism.

If a moral value is relative, it must be relative to a moral value that existed previously.  In other words, if we rationalize behavior as acceptable under a particular set of circumstances, we are doing so because that behavior must have been judged as wrong sometime in the past under the same or different circumstances.  This must be so or we wouldn't find ourselves having to rationalize the behavior as right.  As we move back in time, we eventually arrive at a beginning.  The truth of moral values can’t recede beyond that point, meaning there are no previous circumstances with which to relate any particular moral dictate.  So the truth of moral values is what it was in the beginning.  The only way out of this is to insist that there is no beginning, but the reality of the big bang negates that position.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis1:1

Moral truth, therefore, lies with the “Initiator”. The Bible agrees with this and does not make the mistake of misleading its readers into living a contradiction.  It tells it like it is.  It says right is right, always was and always will be.  It doesn't subject morality to seasonal variation depending upon who organizes the biggest parade. 

The Bible gives us assurance about where the line is and what the consequences are if we cross it.  It also tells us how to get back on the right side of the line before those consequences take effect.  It teaches us that what we teach our children can in turn be passed on to their children.  It teaches with authority and does not patronize every fleeting whim.  That, in and of itself, is moral credibility.  In the interest of making a point and in fairness to the memory of Mark Twain, we will quote him out of context.

Mark Twain said, "Most people are bothered by those passages of scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand." We all understand the Ten Commandments.  What they set forth as a moral standard 3500 years ago is morally correct today.

   We have seen that evolution, as a theory for our origin, is hopelessly naive.  Nor does it offer a viable explanation for the existence of morality or the phenomena of worship.  How can it hope to rationalize man's need to create poetry, music and paintings?  It didn't, couldn't and consequently should be relegated to the past along with assumptions that the universe is infinitely old.

 We have seen the obvious stamp of intelligent planning and design within the DNA housed genetic code for all living organisms and how the universe had to be specifically organized in order to support life.  Realizing that a creator existed, we concluded that He may have revealed Himself through someone.  Because Jesus Christ claimed to be that someone, we decided to take a hard look at Him by examining His credentials, the Bible.

            We have seen the Bible to be historically correct, morally sound, immutable, life changing and irrepressible.  It is a good candidate for the revelation we have been seeking.  One vital confirmation remains and that is to authenticate the “seal” of the Creator.  If that examination bears out, we can begin the process of becoming familiar with the entity responsible for our existence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                        CHAPTER 11

THE STAMP

 

The world shaking literary anomaly called the Bible is historically and scientifically grounded in truth but skeptics unconvincingly argue that it is nothing more than a pious fraud or the product of its forty authors over-active imaginations.  That philosophically biased sentiment is squelched permanently by examining a biblical phenomenon that is simply beyond the realm of human endeavor, the duplication of which has never occurred in any other manuscript, ancient or modern, religious or secular. It can be described with one word, foreknowledge, and we will label it as God's “seal”.

If we assign dates to points on a straight line as a graphic representation of time, it is called a time-line.  History is represented by points on one side of today's date and the future is represented by points on the other side.  Our lives are bound to the point representing today and we can’t move along the line at will.  We can only know the past from relics or tales and the future is a mystery but that is not so with the true author of the Bible, the Creator.      

          God is transcendent in His relationship to the universe, meaning He is unconstrained by the dimensions of time and space.  He created those dimensions and His perception of time is like our view of a line on which we've written dates.  God knows the human drama from beginning to end and the Bible demonstrates that fact. 

          He apparently anticipated that His Word would be greeted with skepticism.  In any case, He purposely included predictions of man's future and encouraged readers of the Bible to use those predictions as a benchmark for determining the difference between a false prophet and one inspired by Him.  Consider the following scriptures.

And you may say in your heart "How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?"  When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken.  The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."  Deuteronomy 18:21-22              

"Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together.  Who has announced this from of old?  Who has long since declared it?  Is it not I, the Lord?  And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me."  Isaiah. 45:21

He expected us to be capable of recognizing the irrefutable fact that human beings do not have the capacity to predict future events with 100% accuracy and, on the other hand, if the Holy Scriptures always record accurate predictions, they must be divinely inspired.  In effect, the writers of the Bible issued this challenge to men of all times.  Read the predictions made in this book and test them against actual events.  Could mere men have made them?   Not if we insist that they play by the same rules as God, who does not allow errors.  The Bible says God's prophets must never be wrong and if they are, they are not God's prophets, a position in which one pawning himself off as a spokesman of God did not want to find himself. In Moses’ day the penalty for representing oneself as a prophet and making false predictions was death by stoning. 

The Bible has never erred in its predictions of future events and that record encompasses an extensive body of scripture.  The Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy by the late J. Barton Payne lists over 1800 prophecies, of which there are several classifications.  Conditional prophecies, for example, are predictions that something will take place only if something else precedes it.   There are also prophecies given in the form of types, noted previously as records and descriptions of people or events that mirror who and what will appear again similarly in the future but in a grander and more thoroughly completed state.  For example, Moses was a type of Christ in that he was a prophet and savior of his people but Christ is the ultimate prophet and savior. But there are also hundreds of prophecies in the Bible that are purely predictive, meaning simply that history was recorded before it took place. 

Except for those men specifically chosen by God as prophets, “divining” the future is a practice in which the Bible says men should not participate.  But throughout history many people other than biblical prophets have claimed a special ability to foresee coming events, like Nostradomas.  Exposes' on the jaded world of psychics the likes of Nostradomas, Jeanne Dixon, Edgar Caycee, and others have been done repeatedly, however, and they really shouldn't be necessary.  If enough money to pay the national debt were offered to anyone who could specifically and accurately forecast the future of nations and people but public execution was the prize for a faulty prediction, only a fool would step forward and make the attempt.

  At best, man's efforts in this arena have been occasionally successful but in the main they’ve been characterized by consistent failure.  Certain individuals though, such as the ones mentioned above, seem to have been endowed with a greater ability to anticipate the future than the rest of us.  Although their prognostications were generally vague in content, some did come true.  What is not so well publicized is the mammoth number of predictions these people made that did not come true. They are a matter of public record, however, and can be examined in any public library. But the Bible and its predictions, archaeological records and widely accepted secular histories are also available in the library.  Research into both sources of predictions for accuracy will confirm the Bible as divinely inspired and show man up for what he is, fallible in the extreme.    

   Anyone who makes it their business to prophecy can establish some degree of success but no one has been able to establish a 100% accuracy level except biblical prophets.  Should we trust pretenders, men and women who have had far more psychic misfires than hits? We shouldn’t and we will not spend valuable time speculating on how they managed to be sporadically correct.

   God's spokesmen in the Bible, whether documenting the present or the future, were detailed and factual.  There are hundreds of prophecies, the entire Biblical record being approximately 30% prophetic, and every book in the Bible contains prophecy.  Some of it involves what the Bible refers to as the “end times”, which obviously means that this particular body of prophecy remains at least partially unfulfilled.  But of all the events described prior to their actual occurrence in history, not one deviated in the slightest detail from the way it was depicted as occurring. We have been confronted with the reality that the Bible made precise forecasts about man’s future and they came to pass.  We can’t ignore that and if we do, we are ignoring a message of warning and salvation from a source with authority over the dimension of time.

            Foreknowledge, the biblical trademark, is not only manifested in history but science as well.  The Bible writers recorded many scientific principles that only future generations would have the technology to confirm.  Historical prophecy is the truly wondrous phenomena which the prophets proclaim as the true stamp of the creator, but the scientific foreknowledge exhibited in scripture is remarkable as well.  We will look at it first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 12

SCIENTIFIC FOREKNOWLEDGE

 

 The scriptures were written to offer spiritual rather than scientific enlightenment.  However, as with history, when the subject of the natural order was touched upon, it was done so in truth and never has this become more apparent than right now.  Numerous scientific discoveries made in the 20th century have confirmed what was written in the Bible thousands of years ago although the Bible’s description of our physical realm has always been challenged as inaccurate by the scientific establishment. So it is somewhat ironic that in the last 10 years that same scientific establishment has been forced to concede that the biblical prophets were, in fact, very accurate.

But of course committed naturalists will always deny the truth of the Bible, no matter how much confirmation it receives. They prefer to blindly accept what they see or hear in a media that is as overwhelmingly naturalistic in its philosophy as the scientific establishment that feeds it.  Skeptics would sooner believe what they see on “Nova” rather than consider a rational harmony of scripture and science. 

Of the entire Bible, the writings of Moses in Chapter 1 of Genesis, penned 3500 years ago, have been the most severely attacked.  But the first chapter of Genesis actually contains the most astounding words of antiquity ever examined when viewed from a modern scientific perspective, as we will see.  Even so, Moses’ epic has been lumped with other ancient creation myths as quaint and interesting but scientifically absurd.  Upon reading those other creation narratives, however, it becomes obvious that they are rooted in superstition and paganism and bear no resemblance at all to Genesis. (For comparison, at the end of this chapter are summaries of creation myths from around the world and the first 31 verses of Genesis, Chapter 1.)

Genesis is pulled down to the level of these pagan myths primarily because it says the universe was created in just 6 days, a transparent erroneous tradition among certain Christian & Jewish sects.  After all, as most high school students know, the big bang took place between about 15 billion years ago, according to various sophisticated methods of calculating the age of the universe, so a six-day creation scenario is nonsense.  As we have seen, however, that critique is a straw man and a properly translated Bible does not say that everything was created in six 24 hour days but rather in a series of “ages” of indeterminate length.

One of the biggest differences between Genesis and “the myths” regards time.  The myths, and the belief systems behind them, have all made the assumption that time stretches infinitely into the past, an erroneous belief in light of current big bang cosmology. Genesis, on the other hand, agrees with current scientific knowledge regarding a beginning for time and the universe.  In fact, the theory of relativity highlights the scientific accuracy of Genesis, not only in reference to the birth of the universe but in other areas as well. It is so extraordinary it is worth looking at a little closer.

We are going to consider Einstein’s idea that the passage of time is relative to the location of the observer within our universe and see if it has any bearing on Genesis being scientifically sound, although no attempt will be made to convey in these brief paragraphs a comprehensive analysis of the natural forces affecting the dimension of time. For that, a book such as Steven Hawking’s best seller, “A Brief History of Time”, would serve quite well.  Suffice it to say that many such explanations exist and mankind has indeed confirmed through experiments that time will pass slower for one observer compared to another observer if the first is either moving at a greater velocity, is positioned within a greater gravitational field or is existing during a different expansion stage of the universe.  As either observer approaches the speed of light, time for him will pass slower and slower. Light itself, that strange energy quirk that behaves as both a wave and a particle, is timeless, a very difficult concept for human beings to fathom, even though we can demonstrate that concept through observations and calculations. 

Those observations and calculations also indicate that time had a beginning. At the moment of the big bang, a moment predicted by Einstein’s theory, a white hot, infinitely dense dot of energy expanded into new space, cooling as it did so until it was cool enough for matter to form, and from that instant the dimension of time came into being.  That single discovery sets the Bible apart as supremely veracious when compared to all other religious literature, ancient or otherwise, and even when compared to some recent scientific literature, because only the Bible agrees with modern science that the dimension of time began with the creation of the universe.

The concept of a beginning for time is, like “timelessness”, hard to grasp. During the attempt, we catch ourselves using expressions like “before time began”, an oxymoron.  The word “before” is meaningless in the absence of time.  Because of the incongruity of such a thought process, we have historically attributed an infinite nature to our universe, especially regarding the nature of time. We have always thought of the universe as having no beginning or end. The scientific discoveries indicating that time had a beginning were not made until the 20th century, so until then scientists & philosophers could only conceive of anything, even “the gods”, as existing in “duration”, a time dependent concept. We all have trouble thinking otherwise and that is certainly not a reflection on our intelligence, as we simply do not have the ability to comprehend or visualize something beyond the boundaries of our own reality. We must simply accept that out universe had a beginning and is a “time”/space continuum, one dimension not possible without the other, and then stand astonished that a reality scientists are patting themselves on the back for discovering was first presented in the Bible as a theological and philosophical abstraction over three millennia ago. Is this just a rather remarkable coincidence?

The observations confirming relativity also expose various properties of light and how it relates to time. One property is that it can be measured in wave frequencies, frequency being the number of peaks observed in the wave per second. We observe varying light frequencies as a shift in the visible color band from red to blue but the variation in frequency of all light energy, such as electromagnetic radiation, gamma rays, x–rays, and so forth, encompasses a very wide range and the greater part of that range cannot be seen with the naked eye. Light varies in frequency partly because space is expanding, that is, the universe is expanding in size and light waves are stretched, meaning the distance between peaks in light waves becomes greater as the universe expands. 

Within a split second of the beginning of time, light energy was being emitted at a frequency level astronomically greater than the frequency level of the universal Cosmic Background Radiation currently being measured by astronomers. The ratio of one to the other has an interesting parallel with the age of universe as understood by modern man and the Bible, as we will see shortly.  CBR is now presented by scientists as another of the evidences for the big bang, its frequency being precisely what their predictions indicated it would be if the big bang theory is correct.

Because of the laws of relativity, time would pass for the emitter of that original light energy, relative to time for those receiving the same light energy as CBR 15 billion years later, at a ratio equal to the difference in the frequency of the light emitted and the light received.  Such is the nature of time and light.  Following is a selected portion of text from “The Science of God”, a book written by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a physicist with a PHD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Jewish Torah scholar, in which he discusses the concept of CBR as the basis for a “cosmic clock”, a gauge against which time can be measured from different perspectives.

“Light has the mysterious property of being both a particle and a wave.  It is the wave aspect that allows us to measure time over cosmic distances.  What we refer to as visible light is only one particular band of wavelengths in a nearly infinite range of electromagnetic radiations all of which travel at the same speed: the speed of light (c = 300 million meters per second in a vacuum)…. The shorter the wavelength, the higher the wave frequency and the higher the wave energy.  The velocity remains constant.

Our application (provided earlier in Schroeder’s text) of light in calculating the passage of time on the Sun relative to the Earth demonstrated the usefulness of light frequency as a cosmic clock.  It related time at one location in the universe (the Sun) to time at another location (the Earth).

A common error in exploring the brief biblical age of the universe relative to the discoveries of cosmology is to view the universe from a specific location rather than choosing a reference frame that embraces the entire universe and retains that universal perspective for the entire six days…

Just after the big bang, the universe was concentrated hot plasma with nearly identical energies throughout.  The relative passage of time varied only slightly, if at all, among its components but as the universe expanded and cooled, vastly different local gravities and velocities evolved, having vastly different rates at which local proper times flowed.  For our understanding of Genesis time, we must maintain the undifferentiated frame of reference that pervaded the universe at its beginning.

The lights we see in the heavens originate with energy released in stellar and galactic nuclear reactions.  But there is another source of cosmic radiation, one that has been present since the creation of the universe.  That is the radiation remnant, the echo as it were, of the big bang.  This cosmic background radiation (CBR) fills the entire universe, unrelated to any particular source.  Discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965, it is the only source of radiation that has been present and ubiquitous since the creation.  CBR frequency forms the basis of cosmic proper time, the biblical clock of Genesis. 

Concepts of cosmic proper time relative to the expansion of the universe and its perceived age have been presented in such prestigious peer-reviewed journals as Nature and the American Journal of Physics... 

Three aspects of the universe produce identical effects on radiation frequency.  Positive differences in velocity, gravity, and the stretching of space as the universe expands all increase (stretch) the wavelength of radiation.  Since the frequency of radiation (and hence the beat of the cosmic clock) is lowered in direct proportion to the increase in wavelength, this increase in wavelength slows the perceived passage of time.  The first two of these three phenomena relate to differences in the flow of conventional time--biological time--between specific locations.  The third, the universal stretching of space, equally alters the perception of time’s flow as reckoned by the universal cosmic clock.”

The use of an analogy here may be helpful in understanding how an expanding universe affects the perception of time.  If a conductor on a train moving away at 200 miles per day sends a postcard to his wife after one full day and the return mail train is traveling at the same speed, his wife will receive the postcard within 1 day of the conductor having sent it.  In it he tells her he will send a postcard every day while he is gone and that his time away is expected to last a couple more days.  He tells her he will be staying in a hotel.  But then he is informed by his supervisor that he must accompany the train as it moves further from his home at the same rate of speed, 200 miles per day. He is faithful and sends one postcard every day on the return mail train as it passes.  But the further away he travels, the longer it takes for the cards to reach his wife.  If he has been traveling for 1 additional day and sends his second card on the 2nd of the month, she will receive it on the 4th. If he sends another card on the 3rd, she will receive it on the 6th, 3 days later, and so on as he travels further down the track. 

His perception of time tells him he is sending one card per day and her perception of time tells her he is sending one card every 2 days. Their universe is expanding and so time is perceived by the sender of the cards as passing faster relative to time as perceived by the receiver of the cards.  The history of their universe is represented by card sending and receiving as historical events and is perceived as spanning less time by the sender than the receiver.  And that is exactly how we measure the passing of time. We quantitatively measure events of known duration taking place within a specific time interval, or “day”.  In other words, if history recorded that 100 generations of men lived in day one and only 10 generations of men lived in day 2, we would know that day one spanned more time than day 2.

For the wife of the conductor looking into the past, if she were told the time interval between the sending of cards had been universally standardized as a “card-day”, according to her 24 hour clock it would have taken two 24 hour days for a card-day to transpire. For the conductor it would have only taken one 24 hour day.  For the wife, her day would be shorter, from the universal perspective, because only ½ of a card-day would have been spanned in 24 hours.

If an expanding universe affects the perception of time, can the relative flow rate of time, at various stages in that expansion, be measured in some way?  The answer is yes, via the frequency of light.  And because light is energy and light energy frequency and light energy temperature are directly related, light frequency can also be measured in temperature.

The current Cosmic Background Radiation, expanded light energy waves left over from the initial instant that matter and time first appeared, is measured at 2.74 degrees Kelvin. We also know the universe is approximately 15 billion years old, a time period approximately 910 billion times greater than six 24 hour days.  So, from the standpoint of the “cosmic clock”, we would expect the perception of time at the writing of Genesis to differ with the perception of time during the first second of the universe by a factor of approximately 910 billion. If we multiply the current CBR temperature of 2.74 degrees Kelvin by this factor, we get a temperature of 2.5 trillion degrees Kelvin and this corresponds precisely with the temperature range believed to be present during the very first second of the existence of the universe.

  It would appear that the universe is six 24 hour days old if the frame of reference is the first second of the big bang and 15 billion years old if the frame of reference is the planet earth in Moses’ time.  It seems that the days of Moses represent the ages of God from the standpoint of the “cosmic clock” and are mathematically correct from the perspective of the laws of the relativity of time. Is this another coincidence?

From the opening verse of the Bible, history is recorded with the specific intent of tracing the entire creation of the universe from its inception at the big bang to the appearance of one man within that universe, Jesus Christ.  This purpose can be seen primarily in the recurring phrase, “These are the Generations of …”, an idiom first appearing in Genesis, Chapter 2, in reference to the history of the universe from the beginning to the arrival of man.  The next time the expression appears is in Chapter 5 of Genesis as it records history from Adam until the arrival of Noah.  From there the generations are traced through Noah’s’ son Seth until Abraham, then through Jacob’s son Judah (Abraham’s great grandson) and ultimately to Jesus of Nazareth through Mary. Throughout the Bible, from Genesis until the New Testament, the entire history of the universe and of mankind is traced in increments of time that span successively less years but with increasing attention to detail. 

We have all experienced the technology of a zoom lens.  The Bible utilizes the same technique as the history documented within its pages is examined.  Each twist of the lens brings the details of history into sharper focus but those details span less and less time.  This scheme was also applied by Moses as he recorded the 6 days of Genesis, from our perspective a period spanning approximately 15 billion years.

So not only do those six days represent literal eons, each succeeding day describes in greater and greater detail events which actually took less and less time. Our perception of the amount of time that transpired in each of those “days” would be different because in each the universe was larger exponentially compared to its size the “day” before. If the universe expanded at the speed of light for six successive equal time periods, from the perspective of someone measuring time at the end of each “day”, time would seem to be passing slower as the universe expanded because the frequency of light would be greater.  Because a larger universe stretches waves of light energy, decreasing the frequency and bringing it closer to the frequency of CBR as measured today, time would be perceived in each successive day as passing at a rate closer to our time scale now.  In other words, less years would pass during the last day than in preceding days because time would be passing much slower. The first day would encompass a great deal more time than the last day.  Each successive day from 1 through 6 would be shorter in years by a ratio inversely proportional to the size of the universe when the flow of time was measured. If our three dimensional universe expanded at the speed of light until it reached its current estimated breadth of 15 billion light years, and that expansion was divided into 6 equal light year segments, the total volume of space encompassed by the universe at the end of each of those six expansion epochs, relative to its size today, would be as follows:

At the end of day 1 it would be .0046% of the total. At the end of day 2, .037% of the total, .125% at the end of day 3, .29% at the close of day 4, .57% ending day 5 and of course 100% at the end of day 6.  Knowing this, we can figure the length of each of Moses’ six days from our perspective, a perspective telling us the universe is a total of 15 billion years old. When those percentages are converted to years using 15 billion as the total age of the universe, the perception of time spanned for the entire history of the universe at the end of each of those expansion stages is 69 million years for the first, 555 million for the second, 1.875 billion for the third, 4.44 billion for the fourth and 8.68 billion for the fifth.  The amount of time perceived as having passed at the end of the sixth would appear to be 15 billion years. In order to see how we arrive at the length of time for each of the six days, we will look at a simpler model. 

Assume Moses said the universe was created in two days.  If the universe expanded at the speed of light, after the second day the breadth of the universe would be twice what it was at the end of the first day. But the volume of space is the factor affecting the stretching and measurement of light frequency through CBR temperature and therefore the gauge by which we assess the relative perception of time according to the cosmic clock in an expanding universe.  If, from our perspective, the history of the universe encompassed 1000 years but from Moses cosmic perspective it encompassed two days, they were not necessarily 500 years each. That is because the volume of space after the second day, even though the breadth of the universe had doubled, would be approximately 8 times what it was at the end of the first day.   Volume is figured as V = 4 pi R cubed / 3.  This means the volume of space encompassed by the universe at the end of the first day would be .125% relative to its size at the end of the second day.  Time passed slower in the second day by a ratio correlating directly with the volume of space at the end of the second day so the second day encompassed 125 years and the first 875.

When we use the same principle to calculate the length of time spanned in each day for a six day time period, that is, inverting the percentages cited above, .046% for the first day and so on, the expansion epoch representing the least amount of time is day six, meaning it began 69 million years in the past.  As we look further back, day 5 began about 555 million years ago, day 4 about 1.875 billion years ago, day 3 about 4.44 billion years ago, day 2 about 8.68 billion years ago and day one began in a flash 15 billion years back.  We can now figure the length of each of the days. (We subtract the starting date for day 1, 15 billion years ago, from the starting date of day 2, 8.68 billion years ago…and so on.) The first lasted 6.32 billion years, the second 4.24 billion, the third 2.565 billion, the fourth 1.32 billion, the fifth 486 million and the last 69 million. These add to 15 billion.

Now how does the history of the universe and planet Earth as reconstructed by cosmologists, biologists, geologists and anthropologists compare with Moses’ description of that history as he segmented it into six specific epochs, with each succession spanning less and less time?  These are rough estimates, of course, as an assumption of a 15 billion year old universe had to be made because the age of the universe has not been precisely determined by scientists but the times and dates listed above harmonize beautifully, not only with current scientific belief regarding the timing of various cosmological and environmental events preceding our present day, but with Moses’ description of creation in six varying stages.

In Genesis 1:1-8, two days are recorded and billions of years are spanned. The universe was brought into existence and the primordial earth began to take shape as a “formless void”, was then stabilized as a planet with water, a source of light and an atmosphere that was ultimately converted from opaque to translucent. The “surface of the waters” is established as a frame of reference for the remainder of earth’s history about to be recorded. From that vantage point the “Spirit of God” describes the major environmental events affecting our planet in greater and greater detail as each day passes. His descriptions are from the perspective of how those phenomena would appear to the naked eye, as are all subsequent descriptions of “natural” phenomena in the Bible, a technique common even in this day of scientific enlightenment.  (We say the sun rises because that is what it appears to do even though we know this apparition is caused by the rotation of the earth.) The entire two-day process described in verses 1-8 spanned about 10.56 billion years, according to our calculations.  Day three then, described in verses 9-13 of Genesis, would have begun about 4.44 billion years ago and this is exactly when scientists say the earth was finally becoming ready to sustain life.  The Bible says that during the third day dry land first appeared, when the crust became solid, and life made its initial appearance in the form of plants, precisely agreeing with scientists who theorize that the first life was blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) and that it began about 3.5 billion years ago. In typical biblical fashion, the entire history of a “generation” having immediate but not continuing interest is documented all at once. In this case the complete developmental history of plant life is documented in the day it is noted as having first appeared.

Moses continues describing several more successive major creation events occurring ever closer in time to each other and culminating with the creation of man.  In day four, verses 14-19, beginning about 1.875 billion years ago, the atmosphere was finally converted to one in which the sun, moon and stars could actually be seen.  The entire “day” was devoted to this process.  And then at the beginning of day 5, verses 20-23, about 555 million years ago, another astonishing agreement between science and the Bible occurs as the “Cambrian Explosion” is obviously documented by Moses.  The future development of almost every life form to ultimately emerge is mentioned, including birds. The dates are in exact agreement with geologists and biologists regarding what they refer to as the “biological big bang”.

From the beginning of the first day through the beginning of the fifth day the total time spanned is about 14.37 billion years and the days became progressively shorter. Day 5 lasts about 486 million years and then day 6 begins, described in verses 24-31, and it covers the appearance of land creatures of all types, including animals capable of eventually becoming domesticated, bringing us very close to the present as it begins about 69 million years ago.

Here another amazing correlation between Genesis and science occurs as the Bible says that the beginning of Day 6 featured the rapid appearance of land mammals. Dinosaurs finally went extinct 65 million years ago and after that mammals became dominant. The Bible’s primary focus in Day 6, however, is the creation of man as a creature in Gods image through whom would appear a messiah, and so day 6 ends with the appearance of a morally aware, creative, artistic and religious species of hominid that wore clothes, domesticated animals, raised crops and built cities.  Anthropologists version of Adam is Cro-Magnon man, the only hominid fitting the Bible’s description of “man” and they say he appeared very recently in earth’s history, as does the Bible. The guesses range from 100,000 years to 25,000 years. The Bible, anthropologists and archaeologists also agree that this species ushered in the first great civilizations in Mesopotamia around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. 

The scientific community is in perfect accord with the events recorded in the Bible, from the big bang to the appearance of modern man, when they are properly interpreted as illustrative highlights of the major environmental changes and life developmental episodes taking place on earth as it became ultimately suited for and inhabited by men. Regarding the beginnings and endings appointed by Moses to the six days of creation, scientists also concur with the dates that we can now assign to those beginnings and endings through calculations made with superior knowledge of our space/time continuum as it relates to the velocity of light.

It is inconceivable that an ancient nomad educated in an Egyptian culture that worshipped a host of pagan gods, without the aid of the fossil record or modern scientific equipment, could not only document those events correctly and place them in the proper order but separate them according to epochs that would ultimately match precisely with time measurements only made possible through the technological expertise of a culture not appearing for another 3500 years. It would be extremely difficult to postulate, with a straight face, that Moses could perform this feat without supernatural assistance.

But let's assume he got lucky and gained knowledge of the eleven major environmental stages he described without divine revelation and that 6 days and 15 billion years, as a correct relative time ratio linked to the frequency of light, is a quirk of fate.  The odds of him getting even luckier and placing them in correct sequence is easy to figure though, and would be 1 in 11x10x9...and so on.  That is approximately 1 in 40 million without factoring in the unlikely odds of him first picking the correct environmental events, and then placing them in a correct relative time frame, correctness being gauged by modern scientific knowledge. So as we open the Bible and read the first chapter of Genesis, we are confronted with the statistical probability that, because of its uncanny accuracy, it is the Word of God.  All other ancient creation accounts are ridiculously naive and primitive when viewed scientifically. (Several examples are summarized at the end of this chapter)

Throughout the Bible, valid scientific principals are recorded in language which not only pierces the shroud of ignorance worn unwillingly by the uneducated but which also speaks clearly to the modern scientific mind.  It displays foreknowledge in the area of science by consistently displaying truths thousands of years before man would come to know these truths on his own.

Moses was not the only biblical prophet who was ahead of his time. All the Jewish prophets recorded scientific facts centuries before man acquired the technology to confirm them.  Consider the following passages.

  "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, measured heaven (atmosphere) with a span  And calculated the dust of the earth in a measure?  Weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance?"  Isaiah 40:12.

 

We saw in Chapter 6 that scientists have just recently gained understanding regarding the delicately balanced parameters necessary for a habitable earth.  In a passage extolling the omnipotence of God, Isaiah offhandedly refers to measurements of land mass, water, the atmosphere and dust. These must all be within extremely limited tolerances, relative to one another, in order for Earth to benefit from stable weather patterns and seasonal cycles.  Deviations from the ratios now existing between these fundamental constituents of our environment would cause extremes of temperature and/or a barren dry earth.  Isaiah apparently knew that God, in creating a habitat for man, used precise measurements.

"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22

"He stretches out the North over empty space. He hangs the earth on nothing." Job 26:7

Of all the ancient manuscripts, only the Bible clearly describes the position and shape of the earth.  The book of Job may be the oldest book in the Bible.  It was written more than 3500 years ago at a time when other cultures believed the earth was flat and some believed that it rode on the back of a giant turtle.  None of them postulated the earth to be hanging in empty space or to be circular in shape.

This passage also highlights the irrational destructive critical techniques employed by those who would discredit the Bible.  They say the earth does not actually hang and that it is not really a circle, but rather a globe. 

First, the Bible writers are consistent from beginning to end when speaking about the natural world.  They describe things as they would appear to a human observer without scientific measuring devices of any sort.  They used the jargon and idioms of the day, in the same way we would describe a major precipitation event as a “cloudburst”, a term technically and scientifically imprecise.  But do we discard information provided by meteorologists who use this expression?  We should not reject the truth of the Bible for the same tainted line of reasoning. 

Second, most translations of the Bible use the word circle in this passage but the Hebrew word translated circle can also mean circuit.  When this is pointed out a critic will say we are re-translating the Bible to conform with new information.  However, the idea of the earth traveling on a circuit around the sun is relatively new historically and the word circle is the word chosen in the 16th century by the King James translators when the earth was believed to be the center of the universe. The original Hebrew text, the one purportedly inspired by God, could very well have meant circuit.  To discount the Bible as errant and deny its overall message because of scriptures like this is prejudicial, but such is the nature of biblical criticism.  Critics should be marveling at how accurately the writers described the earth's shape/motion, and position, at a time in history when other cultures were aboriginal in their “scientific” descriptions of nature.

"For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist, Which the clouds drop down And pour abundantly on man.  Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds, The thunder from His canopy?" Job 36:27-29 

  "He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning  for the rain; He brings the wind out of His treasures." Psalm 135:7

 "The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit.  All the rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea is not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again." Ecclesiastes 1:6-7

These verses are truly remarkable as to the accuracy and understanding displayed in their description of the earth's weather patterns and hydrologic cycle.  For us these patterns and cycles do not seem very difficult to comprehend but would that be the case if our culture did not have the advantage of modern weather monitoring equipment?  Probably not.  But for ancient writers to casually connect the cause and effect relationship of lightning and precipitation and to correctly note the vast circular atmospheric currents as well as the cycle of precipitation, erosion, evaporation and condensation is fairly remarkable.  We needed satellites.

 As we observe areas in which the Bible describes our environment, we must remember this.  The writers were not attempting to demonstrate their knowledge of the laws of nature.  They used these passages as tools to teach basic truths about God and our relationship to Him.  The confidence and elegance displayed in their writings on the natural order becomes even more impressive as we realize it was incidental to the main message.  They noted how the universe began and how it works.  Their descriptions can not be refuted.  Reflect on these ancient scriptures regarding blood.

  "For the life of the flesh is in the blood ... for it is the life of all flesh.  Its blood sustains its life..."  Leviticus 17:11-14

 "All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fish, and another of birds." 1 Corinthians 15:39

"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation." Acts 17:26 

These passages describe the primary life sustaining role of blood and then describe some of its characteristics.  We have not been able to confirm these scriptures until the present age.  We have been butchering animals and each other for centuries.  Because the blood & flesh of various life forms appeared similar in composition, mankind drew some erroneous conclusions, thinking blood was blood, whether from man or beast.  Prior to the scientific age, only those who believed the Bible thought otherwise.  Now, of course, we know that the blood of varying species is different but that the blood of men is the same, regardless of ethnic background, just as the Bible says. But we needed DNA technology to confirm this biological fact.

Following are more passages of scripture displaying insight into our physical universe.

"Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.  They will perish, but You will endure; yes, all of them will grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed..  But You are the same, and Your years will have no end." Psalm 102:25-27 

This is a clear statement of the second law of thermodynamics as it applies to the universe, a very modern concept.  Until recently scientists believed the universe to be infinitely old and potentially limitless as a source of energy.  We now know the universe is winding down, just as the Bible says.

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:3 

This reference to the microscopically small structure of matter is way ahead of its time.

"When He assigned to the sea its limit, So that the waters would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth." Proverbs 8:29 

Again, the Bible spontaneously refers to parameters for our life support system that reflect limits.

"And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the Lord your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage."  Deuteronomy 4:19  

The Bible warns us to avoid the spiritual trap of worshipping the creation rather than the Creator.  In the above passage that warning is the primary message.  But the verse also declares that the entire "host of heaven" was furnished with us in mind. As we have already seen, the odds are that we are alone in the universe and that only our solar system, out of trillions of star systems, is capable of sustaining life.  That concept, called the strong anthropic principle, only appeared recently in the scientific community.  It appeared because of the explosion in knowledge regarding the design principles apparent for our planet.  But the Bible has been saying it for 3500 years, another example in which it forecasts a scientific concept well before its time. 

Naturalist theory, on the other hand, mandates that we eventually discover life elsewhere.  But the search has been absolutely fruitless, including the searches for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI projects) dramatized by Hollywood and the expensive searches initiated by NASA on Mars. It seems odd that the people supporting these SETI projects operate on the premise that non random signals are evidence of intelligence but reject the non-random sequences of amino acids in DNA as evidence of that sequence having originated from an intelligent source.  

In any case, we have seen that the Bible unquestionably exhibits scientific foreknowledge and of course the single most astounding scientific revelation found in the Bible regards the nature of time.  The Bible announces that the universe does not recede into the infinite past and that time itself had a beginning.  In a book written thousands of years ago we can read what scientists have been reluctant to accept until very recently, as recently as the 1990s.  That fact, in and of itself, lends astonishing credence to the Bible.

As various truths are unfolded by scientists, they invariably fall in line with the Word of God. The laws regarding diet and cleanliness found in the Book of Leviticus have been repeatedly examined by modern medical practitioners and they consistently come away amazed that a book written so long ago described disease prevention techniques we use today but were still failing to utilize in our hospitals as late as the 1800’s.   We could pursue the phenomena of scientific foreknowledge displayed in the Bible until a separate book became necessary.  Many have done so and the conclusions are always the same.  If the scientific community had consulted the Holy Scriptures first, many dead end lines of research could have been avoided.

FOOTNOTE:

The primary intent of this chapter has been to mitigate any conflict between Genesis and science. So we considered the 6 days of creation from a unique perspective.  There are other ways to view Genesis as well.  For example there is the “prophetic  interpretation”.  Those holding to this view-point out that Genesis 1 is not written in the first person, rather it is as if someone is seeing and hearing what is happening, say Moses, in a vision or direct revelation from God, and is recording what he sees and hears. Suppose that God reveals Genesis 1 to the prophet for a week. Each day of that week God reveals a new portion of His creative work. In any case, read Genesis 1 and compare it to the creation myths summarized below.  They are obviously in a different league altogether.

 

GENESIS VERSION OF CREATION

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.

Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VARIOUS CREATION MYTHS

 

Norse Creation Myth:


At first there was only a great void, Ginnungagap. Eventually a region of mist and ice, Niflheim, was formed in the North and a region of fire, Muspellsheim, was formed in the South. The great world-tree, Yggdrasil, reached through all time and space, but was perpetually under attack from Nidhogg, the evil serpent. The fountain of Mimir, source of hidden wisdom, lay under a root of the tree. Niflheim came into contact with Muspellsheim, and the fires melted the ice, which yielded Ymir, the Frost-Giant with a human form. From Ymir's sweat came a race of Giants, so that a huge cow (Audhumla) was created to feed them. One day the cow licked the ice and hair emerged, on the next day a head, and on the third day Buri emerged, fully formed. Buri begot a son, Bur, who in turn had three sons: Odin, Vili, and Ve. These three were a new race, not Giants but gods. They banded together and murdered Ymir. Most of the other Giants drowned in Ymir's blood, which created a great sea. From Ymir's body the three gods made solid land, the earth, and from his skull they made the heavens. They then created a race of dwarves from the maggots that fed upon Ymir's body. This was followed by the creation of the first man and the first woman. They shaped the man from an ash tree and the woman from a vine.

 

Babylonian Creation Myths


From the mixing of Apsu (sweet water) and Tiamat (salt water) there arose the gods, Mummu (the waves), and Lakhmu and Lakhamu (gigantic twin serpents). The serpents produced Anshar (heaven) and Kishar (earth). From these two came Anu, Enlil, and Ea, as well as all the other gods of the sky, earth, and underworld. Apsu and Tiamat became angered because of the noise made by such a large group of gods, and began talking about killing off their progeny so they could get some rest. When Ea, the all-knowing, learned of this he used his magic to capture Apsu and Mummu. Tiamat was furious and raised a large army of gods and freaks to battle Ea and his cohorts. Anu and Ea became frightened and Ea created Marduk to battle Tiamat. Marduk promised to do so if he were granted supremacy over all the other gods. All the gods agreed and Marduk, armed with bow and arrows, lightning, the winds, a hurricane, and a special net sallied forth to battle Tiamat. When they clashed, Marduk caught Tiamat in his special net, and as she opened her mouth to swallow him, loosed the hurricane into her mouth. As she swelled from the hurricane within her, Marduk slew her with an arrow into her belly. Then he cast the net again capturing her army within it. These he chained and cast into the underworld. From her corpse the world is created. He was then proclaimed God of the Gods.


Another Babylonia Creation Myth


In the beginning there was only darkness and water. Out of this Chaos there came many odd creatures: men with wings, two faces, or both; creatures that were male and female combined; humans with goat feet; others who were part horse and part man. These creatures were ruled over by Omorka, the (female) moon. Marduk cut Omorka in two, and separated the the halves into sky and earth, and destroyed all of the odd beings that existed. Then Marduk commanded one of the gods to cut off his head, and from the blood and clay of the earth, he created humans, animals, stars, sun, moon, and everything that is.

 

Egyptian Creation Myth


Only the ocean existed at first. Then Ra (the sun) came out of an egg that appeared on the surface of the water. Ra brought forth four children, the gods Shu and Geb and the goddesses Tefnut and Nut. Shu and Tefnut became the atmosphere. They stood on Geb, who became the earth, and raised up Nut, who became the sky. Ra ruled over all. Geb and Nut later had two sons, Set and Osiris, and two daughters, Isis and Nephthys. Osiris succeeded Ra as king of the earth, helped by Isis, his sister-wife. Set, however, hated his brother and killed him. Isis then embalmed her husband's body with the help of the god Anubis, who thus became the god of embalming. The powerful charms of Isis resurrected Osiris, who became king of the netherworld, the land of the dead. Horus, who was the son of Osiris and Isis, later defeated Set in a great battle and became king of the earth.


Another Egyptian Creation Myth:


At first there was only Nun, the primal ocean of chaos that contained the beginnings of everything to come. From these waters came Ra who, by himself, gave birth to Shu and Tefnut. Shu, the god of air, and Tefnut, the goddess of moisture gave birth to Geb and Nut, the earth god and the sky goddess. And so the physical universe was created. Men were created from Ra's tears. They proved to be ungrateful so Ra, and a council of gods, decided they should be destroyed. Hathor was dispatched to do the job. She was very efficient and slaughtered all but a remnant, when Ra relented and called her off. Thus was the present world created. Against Ra's orders, Geb and Nut married. Ra was incensed and ordered Shu to separate them, which he did. But Nut was already pregnant, although unable to give birth as Ra had decreed she could not give birth in any month of any year. Thoth, the god of learning, decided to help her and gambling with the moon for extra light, was able to add five extra days to the 360-day calendar. On those five days Nut gave birth to Osiris, Horus the Elder, Set, Isis, and Nephthys successively. Osiris became the symbol of good, while Set became the symbol of evil. And thus the two poles of morality were fixed once and for all.

 

 

Celtic Creation Myth

 

The giants are the gods of old. In the first winter, a mighty giant was created from hoarfrost. And when fire came, he melted. From the enormous bulk of his body came the world. From his blood flowed the sea, from his bones the mountains, from his hair the forests, from his skull the sky. In the centre of the Earth, on hills rising high as mountains, live the gods, and below seethes the Underworld, land of the dead and all their secrets.

 

Yoruba Creation/Flood Myth

 

In the beginning was only the sky above, water and marshland below. The chief god Olorun ruled the sky, and the goddess Olokun ruled what was below. Obatala, another god, reflected upon this situation, then went to Olorun for permission to create dry land for all kinds of living creatures to inhabit. He was given permission, so he sought advice from Orunmila, oldest son of Olorun and the god of prophecy. He was told he would need a gold chain long enough to reach below, a snail's shell filled with sand, a white hen, a black cat, and a palm nut, all of which he was to carry in a bag. All the gods contributed what gold they had, and Orunmila supplied the articles for the bag. When all was ready, Obatala hung the chain from a corner of the sky, placed the bag over his shoulder, and started the downward climb. When he reached the end of the chain he saw he still had some distance to go. From above he heard Orunmila instruct him to pour the sand from the snail's shell, and to immediately release the white hen. He did as he was told, whereupon the hen landing on the sand began scratching and scattering it about. Wherever the sand landed it formed dry land, the bigger piles becoming hills and the smaller piles valleys. Obatala jumped to a hill and named the place Ife. The dry land now extended as far as he could see. He dug a hole, planted the palm nut, and saw it grow to maturity in a flash. The mature palm tree dropped more palm nuts on the ground, each of which grew immediately to maturity and repeated the process. Obatala settled down with the cat for company. Many months passed, and he grew bored with his routine. He decided to create beings like himself to keep him company. He dug into the sand and soon found clay with which to mold figures like himself and started on his task, but he soon grew tired and decided to take a break. He made wine from a nearby palm tree, and drank bowl after bowl. Not realizing he was drunk, Obatala returned to his task of fashioning the new beings; because of his condition he fashioned many imperfect figures. Without realizing this, he called out to Olorun to breathe life into his creatures. The next day he realized what he had done and swore never to drink again, and to take care of those who were deformed, thus becoming Protector of the Deformed. The new people built huts as Obatala had done and soon Ife prospered and became a city. All the other gods were happy with what Obatala had done, and visited the land often, except for Olokun, the ruler of all below the sky. She had not been consulted by Obatala and grew angry that he had usurped so much of her kingdom. When Obatala returned to his home in the sky for a visit, Olokun summoned the great waves of her vast oceans and sent them surging across the land. Wave after wave she unleashed, until much of the land was underwater and many of the people were drowned. Those that had fled to the highest land beseeched the god Eshu who had been visiting, to return to the sky and report what was happening to them. Eshu demanded sacrifice be made to Obatala and himself before he would deliver the message. The people sacrificed some goats, and Eshu returned to the sky. When Orunmila heard the news he climbed down the golden chain to the earth, and cast many spells which caused the flood waters to retreat and the dry land reappear. So ended the great flood.


Vodun (Haitian evolution of Yoruba mythology) Creation Myth


Damballah (Sky-serpent loa; wise and loving father) created all the waters of the earth. The movement of his 7,000 coils, when in his serpent guise, formed hills and valleys on earth and brought forth stars and planets in the heavens. He shed his skin in the sunlight, releasing all the waters over the land. The sun shone in the water and created the rainbow. Damballah loved the rainbow's beauty and made her his wife, Aida-Wedo; she shares his function as cosmic protector and giver of blessings.

 

Navajo:


The people traveled through four worlds before climbing a reed growing from the bottom of the Lake of Changing Waters to this present world. First Man and First Woman with their two first children, Changing Twins, were in the forefront. First Man and First Woman produced a mountain. They populated it with plants and animals. On the peak they placed a black bowl with two blackbird eggs in it. They fastened down the peak with a rainbow. One twin took some clay from riverbed and it fashioned itself into a bowl. The other twin found reeds growing and shaped them into a water basket. They picked up stones from the ground which became axes, knives, spear points and hammers in their hands.


Aztec


Quetzalcoatl, the light one, and Tezcatlipoca, the dark one, looked down from their place in the sky and saw only water below. A gigantic goddess floated upon the waters, eating everything with her many mouths. The two gods saw that whatever they created was eaten by this monster. They knew they must stop her, so they transformed themselves into two huge serpents and descended into the water. One of them grabbed the goddess by the arms while the other grabbed her around the legs, and before she could resist they pulled until she broke apart. Her head and shoulders became the earth and the lower part of her body the sky. The other gods were angry at what the two had done and decided, as compensation for her dismemberment, to allow her to provide the necessities for people to survive; so from her hair they created trees, grass, and flowers; caves, fountains, and wells from her eyes; rivers from her mouth; hills and valleys from her nose; and mountains from her shoulders. Still the goddess was often unhappy and the people could hear her crying in the night. They knew she wept because of her thirst for human blood, and that she would not provide food from the soil until she drank. So the gift of human hearts is given her. She who provides sustenance for human lives demands human lives for her own sustenance. So it has always been; so it will ever be.

Greek Creation Myth
 
Eurynome, the goddess of all creation, arose from Chaos and separated the sea from the sky. Then, dancing naked upon the waves, she created the wind and rubbed it in her hands to create the serpent Ophion, who made love to her. Pregnant, Eurynome laid the World Egg, and Ophion coiled around it and hatched it. This egg brought forth the cosmos and everything in it. Eurynome and Ophion settled on Mount Olympus, and here, soon, Ophion was proclaiming himself creator. Eurynome, angry, banished him to the netherworld. Then she established the seven planets, each with a Titan and Titaness to rule it. When man appeared, he sprang from the soil, and the first man, Pelasgus, taught the others to eat acorns, build huts, and make clothes.

 


 


Home Page | Bibliography | Table of Contents | Beyond a Shadow Chapters 1 through 5 | Beyond a Shadow Chapters 6 through 9 | Beyond a Shadow Chapters 10 through 12 | Beyond a Shadow Chapters 13 through 19 | William Brugman | 

E-Mail us | Links | Book Summary | Articles