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.