Transcript of Bible Study on Creation

(A) The Mystery of Creation

"To say that God created 'out of nothing' is to confess the mystery, not explain it."

Common objection 1:
Conservation of mass-energy is violated. Creation rests upon an asserted axiom which can neither be proven nor disproven.

Response:
Mass-energy need not be conserved where God is concerned. "Something out of nothing" is incomprehensible to the finite human mind, which is familiar with fixed quantities, beginnings and ends.

The "axiom" in Genesis must be accepted by faith because: (i) It is beyond mortal reason (ii) It is consistent with observed phenomena e.g.: biological function and design; replicable physical rules which govern the behaviour of  mass-energy
Hebrews 11:3 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.
_____
Common objection 2:
An arbitrary "In the beginning", without definition or justification.

Response:
If beginning is taken to be the initiation of time, than the term ‘before’ is inapplicable to ‘beginning’, because “before” is a preposition of time. Further discussion in succeeding section (B) Space and Time
____
The irony of rival secular theories on cosmic origins:
(i) All or most gravitate towards some arbitrary, singular, cataclysmic initial event.
(ii) Somehow people intuitively know that space, time energy and matter must have come from somewhere some time ago, yet they are uncomfortable with the concept of a divine creator.
(iii) How and what are known (or so is claimed), but not why. In contrast, the Biblical account explains what and why, but not how.

The Why of creation: 
Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good…
God did not evaluate His creation as good according to any standard of excellence other than His own. Obviously God created what He thought was good for His own pleasure and glory. Even we, as creatures, understand this. We make objects and pursue interests which we perceive as good simply for our own pleasure, and sometimes ego.
_____
God's creatures depend upon, yet remain distinct from Him. Without distinct identities, there can be no distinct communion.

(B) Space and Time

God’s creation of time and space is simply recounted, but not explained in
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning (time) God created the heaven and the earth (space).

"Space and time are dimensions of the created order; God is not “in” either; nor is he bound by either as we are."
_____
(B1) God and Space

God's transcendence over space: 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chronicles 2:6, 2 Chronicles 6:18

God's transcendence over space => Divine omnipresence
While God transcends space, He also permeates space. Psalm 139:7-12

Theologian A.H. Strong defines omnipresence: “God, in the totality of His essence, without diffusion or expansion, multiplication or division, penetrates and fills the universe in all its parts”

In other words, God simultaneously occupies every point in space (and time) while still remaining the same, singular deity, without dividing, duplicating or diluting Himself.

Filling by diffusion corresponds with fluid expansion - dilution occurs, and the orginal quality is lost.
Filling by mutiplication corresponds with biological reproduction - cellular division occurs, and the original identity is lost.
_____
(B2) God and Time

Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
First appearance in the Bible of a chronological unit - the day. God designed a periodic cycle of light and darkness to be a cosmic time keeper.
_____
An inadequate instant to man is to God an ample eternity; an endless eternity to man is to God an insignificant instant.

2 Peter 3:8 is a paraphrase of Psalm 90:4

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,…

This refers to divine speed which can complete instantaneously work which work require of man eternity

2 Peter 3:8 …and a thousand years as one day.

This refers to divine patience which can outwait man for eternity.
______
God and Time =>Divine foreknowledge=>Divine omniscience

Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

God knows what has been, what is, what will be and what might have been.

He can inspire accurate prophecies with His omniscience - and revoke them at His pleasure with divine sovereignty - while remaining consistent as God.
Jonah 3:1-4, 10

(C) Sustenance
God is self-sustaining and sustains all creation (Acts 17:25-28, Col. 1:17)

Col. 1:17; And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Heb. 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Acts 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Can you point out a piece of trivia in one of the above scripture passages?

An interesting digression – Paul, in verse 28, quoted a line from Phaenomena by the Macedonian Greek poet Aratus. Phaenomena was dedicated to the praise of the Greek deity Zeus, the mythological king of the gods. Paul was hijacking the Greek pagan concept of God to portray a theologically correct one, as well as to demonstrate that he was a well-read individual who understood their philosophy.  

How do you think God continues to sustain His creation?

What are some of the illusions of self-sustenance in creation?

The illusion of complete self-sustenance in nature is so convincing because God has so elegantly implemented partial self-sustaining mechanisms into it. All animal nutrition ultimately derives from plants-life, which itself generates its own food by photosynthesis. With continued exposure to light, plants can survive in closed systems by recycling their own waste products indefinitely.

The ecosystem seems quite robust and independent, until one starts to wonder where the light for photosynthesis comes from. The answer is Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

All life – or at least all human life - on Earth is dependent on the Sun, which God created, and can extinguish at His own pleasure. Man has no way to ensure that the Sun will retain its precise luminosity or distance necessary for his life to continue. And it is no accident that all the astronomical parameters necessary for life are fully met. The concurrence of 2 parameters is a coincidence, that of 3 or more a divine conspiracy.

Arguably, His most important act of sustenance is His redemption and restoration of Man (Heb. 1:3)

Heb. 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

(D) Creative Intrusions
God does not leave the universe to run its own pre-programmed course. History is littered with instances of divine intervention and miraculous additions to existing creation.

-parting of the red sea
-stopping of the sun for Joshua to pursue Israel’s enemies
-Incarnation of God Himself

Divine creation continues today even in biological procreation. Not every embryo becomes a human being. Infusion of the spirit with the stem cell is beyond the realm of biochemistry, but remains very much an underrated miracle.
Job 13:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

Conversion and regeneration is very much a work of creation – or re-creation – by the Holy Spirit.
John 3
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Rationally, the Human response is faith and worship. Even if no emotion is evoked, simple sense demonstrates there is nothing else to worship and trust other than God the Creator Himself. All creation is naturally and reasonably subject to this Creator’s authority, which He prefers to benevolently assert rather than forcefully impose. (Of course, He will not hesitate to deal with high sacrilege by martial law.)

By virtue of His supreme status, He is entitled to worship from his subordinates. By commanding worship He displays not arrogance, but honesty. A genius may not be accused of arrogance for intellect, neither a virtuoso for skill; but they all receive spontaneous praise. So it should be with God.  

Acknowledgement
Humility
Worship
Thanksgiving 
Supplication

Philippians 4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.

Be anxious over nothing => Confidence in the Creator's absolute power and grace

Make supplication, request => Dependence upon God for sustenance

Thanksgiving => Gratitude for that sustenance

 

Transcript of Bible Study on Science and Religion

0. Introduction
Bible study sessions on Science and Religion usually stir up uneasiness in students, especially the conductor. Firstly, the media often portrays both at odds, with Science on higher ground. Secondly, a thorough treatment of the subject demands detailed expository introduction on Science.  As such, the session will initially appear completely secular, devoid of scriptural references and principles. However, the Biblical relevance will later become evident.

Bear in mind that any discussion or debate on science and religion is simply one manifestation of deeper philosophy - that on perception, belief and truth.

Why and what is belief? It is a system of definitions and reasoning to distinguish truth and falsehood. What then is truth? That is more appropriately adjourned till later.

1. What is Science?

In briefest summary, science is observation and reason; empirical induction coupled with logical deduction; the acquisition and development of knowledge from observed phenomena.

The scientific method is generally accepted as a sequence (or cycle) of 4 steps:

1.1. Characterization – Definition and empirical observation of the subject of inquiry; asking What?

Empirical refers to reliance on physical evidence.  Empirical observation is the acquisition of information via the 5 classical senses, and by extension of those, measuring devices. Isolated pieces of subjective, anecdotal evidence are usually regarded as non-empirical and accorded lower scientific credibility.

But these conditions cause apparent incompatibility with scripture, and also define limitations to the scientific method. This will be elaborated on later.

1.2. Hypothesis – Suggestion of theoretical, hypothetical explanations for observations; guessing how… The terms hypothesis and theory may generally be considered identical in meaning, although in practical usage the latter tends to project greater dignity and credibility.

1.3. Prediction – Application of logical deduction; simulated extrapolation of the hypothesis to general cases; asking what if? or if-then?

1.4. Experiment – Physically testing the hypothesis and predictions by fixing and varying relevant factors.

If multiple experiments consistently reveal no contradiction in a hypothesis, then it gradually gains acceptance. Maintenance of this consistency over extended periods eventually warrants sufficient scientific confidence to promote the hypothesis to a law. As such, model(s) of reality are constantly defined and refined.

Science is an intuitive rational discipline, not an arcane alien practice. It is very much a simple coupling of all six senses – five classical senses with the 6th (or 0th) being common sense.

1.5. Is Mathematics a Science? – Induction and Deduction

Most mathematicians dislike this classification. Experimentation is regarded as a tedious, cumbersome, inelegant, and non-mathematical procedure. Deductive proofs are often, if not always regarded as more rigorous than inductive proofs. Even mathematical induction requires deduction.

Deduction is the progressive application of simple rules of reasoning to obvious facts, to derive accurate high-level generalizations and/or other less obvious facts. For example, proving simple algebraic or trigonometric identities.

Induction forms generalizations from multiple, repetitive and representative scenarios of the same category. For example, prove that IF real numbers a and b <1, THEN a*b<1. Try a=0, a=one positive proper fraction, a = one negative number, with all 3 representative cases applied to b as well. Combinatorial principles give 3 x 3 = 9 cases, all of which ab<1. This inductive “test-and-see” approach might seem satisfactory, but is not as robust and general as the deductive approach.   

//Pythagoras theorem proof

Mathematical reasoning begins with axioms, from which arise the analytic (or deductive) development of theorems and corollaries. Axioms are fundamental statements of intuitively assumed fact, which are not tested against physical phenomena. The only criterion for their acceptance is self-consistency i.e. lack of mutual contradiction. (An interesting case of axiomatic inconsistency may be found amongst those of Euclidean Geometry – pertaining to parallel lines).

For most practitioners, Mathematics is abstract and independent of the physical universe, not an intrinsic property thereof. Of course it is difficult for the layperson to see this, having learnt that 1+1=2 by placing two physical objects side-by-side. But mathematically speaking, that physical analogy is not the reason for arithmetic rules. Further elaboration on the arcane details is neither possible nor necessary.

It should also be noted that other philosophies regard mathematics as physical, not abstract. This is best understood in the famous question, “How do we know that 1 + 1 Not= 3 on Jupiter or elsewhere in the universe”. The issue of whether Mathematics is physical or abstract has some parallel in psycholinguistics – “Is thought the abstraction of language, or language the tangible expression of thought? Does language enable thought, or does thought create language?” 

2. Limitations of science

The very definition of science reveals its limitations.

2.1. Philosophical limitations
The scientific method is restricted to physically observable phenomenon only. It can produce postulates and proofs from observation, but is entirely inapplicable to the unobservable. Science can neither prove nor disprove the intangible.

Eg: Spirits, angels, demons.

Jhn 4:24   God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
1Cr 2:11   For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].
Gen 2:7   And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The spirit and/or soul makes the human body truly human, but is neither physical nor quantifiable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Attempted_demonstrations_of_the_soul_as_distinct_from_the_mind

Attempted demonstrations of the soul as distinct from the mind

During the late 19th and first half 20th century, researchers attempted to weigh people who were known to be dying, and record their weight accurately at the time of death. As an example, Dr. Duncan MacDougall, in the early 1900s, sought to measure the weight purportedly lost by a human body when the soul departed the body upon death. MacDougall weighed dying patients in an attempt to prove that the soul was material and measurable. These experiments are widely considered to have had little if any scientific merit, and although MacDougall's results varied considerably from 21 grams, for some people this figure has become synonymous with the measure of a soul's weight. Experiments such as MacDougall's have not been repeated with current precision equipment and research tools, and snopes.com concludes of one researcher that:
"MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiosity, but nothing more."
Source and details: http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

Although there is no empirical proof or measure of the soul, there is no definitive disproof either. Clearly, there exists some immaterial element for thatdifferential over the sum of anatomical constituents.

Excluding cases of massive lethal injury, a fresh corpse and an almost-dead body are virtually identical in chemical composition, structure and function. However they are clearly distinct in nature. Unfortunately, where that distinction lies is anything but distinct.

There is no consensus on the definition of death. Criteria for death are context –dependent. There is legal death, clinical death, brain death, information-theoretic death etc.

Since clinical death is most familiar, it will receive sole attention in spiritual considerations. Clinical death is defined as the termination of blood circulation and related vital functions. Until recently, this was medically irreversible and hence effectively equated with full biological death. But newer data has challenged the paradigm.

It might be said that loss of circulation in itself is the physiological distinction between life and death. But in cases of “natural” death, that stoppage is merely the culmination of other physiological sequences. Every immediately preceding cause(s) has/d its cause(s). Perhaps cardiac arrest occurred, which might have been caused by myocardial degeneration, which might have been caused by pulmonary artery dysfunction, which might have been…                           for no apparent reason.

Tracing the web of pre-mortem biochemical processes eventually leads to a dead end; most of them are in fact typical metabolism necessary for life. Moreover, the mechanism of aging is still not understood.

Apparently, the what, why and how of death are scientifically quite unclear.

The Bible gives a spiritual definition of, and explanation for death. Physical death is the separation of spirit from body, the exact time and mechanism of which are exclusively ordained by God. Moreover, aging and death are innate, inescapable processes resulting from original sin.

Gen 3:19   In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.
Gen 25:8   Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full [of years]; and was gathered to his people.
Luk 23:46   And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Returning to the philosophical limitations of science…

Proof of fundamental scientific laws is inductive - it consists in the consistent lack of contrary evidence. 
Eg. Law of gravitation. To the layperson, what goes up must come down (unless it is supplied with energy to overcome gravitational attraction)
Law of thermodynamic (temperature) equilibrium: If thermal contact exists, absolute temperature differences always reduce to 0 (rather than increase).

Science is inapplicable to metaphysical entities and principles. It is a fallacy to say that Science disproves the Bible wherever they diverge in applicability.

2.2. Methodological limitation
Any method of observation is fundamentally limited at a quantum mechanical level, because all information is manifested as physical mass-energy interaction(s). The phenomenon of sight, or vision, is really ocular collection and neural processing of reflected light energy.

This is the basis for Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (The position and momentum of a particle cannot both be exactly known, the accuracy of either comes at the expense of the other) –
The very photons used to observe and resolve a particle themselves interact with that particle, and therefore cannot reveal precisely its pre-interaction state.

Neglecting quantum phenomenon (electron tunneling etc), the speed of light is the uppermost rate limit for practical information transmission. Telescope; distant stars. Instantaneous perception and communication are likely to be physically impossible. 

Not just the speed of light, but the wavelength of light is a limiting factor. Light cannot resolve entities of dimensions smaller than the shortest visible electromagnetic wavelength.

 

2.3. Logical limitations

2.3.1. Causality; Laplace’s demon

 

“We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.”

Strict causal determinism…

// Imagine applying Newton’s, Maxwell’s Laws to every air molecule, every dust particle, every human neuron (at vast computational expense). Would weather become fully predictable? Human choice in any scenario?

// Can this “intellect” be called God? If so, then absolute determinism negates all free choice moral responsibility thereof.

// But causal inquiry eventually arrive at the faulty question of the Eternal God’s origin: “God knows every cause and effect, then what is the cause of God’s existence?”

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Divine character and will cannot be understood fully in terms of cause and effect, for these two are chronological reciprocals –cause is before, effect is after- and God is not bound by prepositions of time. Logic and reason cannot be stretched to contain or comprehend the mind of God, thus it is not man's place to judge God.
Deficient reasoning can, and often does degrade the infinite God to a finite, negative value:
S = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 +…
=>_2S = 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + … = S – 1
=> _ S = -1
Bound by 4 rudimentary dimensions (3 spatial and 1 chronological), the mortal mind cannot fully perceive God in His infinite dimensions. And just as spatial curvature repeals Euclidean geometry, so Divine Will circumvents conventional causality without contradiction.
Divine sovereignty and human free will are not mutually exclusive or subtractive. They are not dichotomous opposites. The latter cannot degrade the Former from total to partial, or absolute to relative; the Former does not stifle the latter.
But to ask how both can coexist and/or cooperate is to ask how light is both a photon and a wave, or how a finite line segment is an infinite set of points, or how Jesus is both fully God and man.
A limited Venn-diagram illustration might define divine sovereignty as an infinite superset containing proper subsets of human free will, accurately reflecting the former's precedence over the latter. However, such a model fails to describe or explain the constant conflict between both wills throughout sinful history.
It appears a contradiction but is actually not, and no mortal mind can comprehend how.
As with the Trinity, there is no adequate physical analogy or poetic metaphor for such duality.
Even reason has its limits.

 

2.4. Post-modernism

If the scientific method, a most basic and intuitive process, leaves much room for uncertainty, then it is natural to ask
(1) if there can exist a method of inquiry capable of conclusively revealing “truth”, and
(2) if absolute “truth” even exists at all.

The Post-modernist philosophy answers the latter in the negative. It denies the existence of absolute truth in favour of defining any convenient frame of reference as a “relative truth”, any of which is regarded as equally valid.

For the postmodernist, Belief is truth, and truth is belief.  Reality is simply equal to perception.

//Matrix Trilogy

But the problems with this are obvious. The statement that there absolutely exists no absolute truth intrinsically negates itself, in that it discounts any means of proving itself true. It is analogous to the self-contradictory claim “I always lie”.
If the statement were true, then it would be true that the claimant always lies, in which case that statement itself must be a lie. So we have a contradiction.
(T=>F; contra)
If the statement were false, then it would be false that the claimant always lies, in which case that statement itself must be true. So we have another contradiction. 
(F=>T; contra)

Consider a variation of the post-modernist claim: “There is no absolute truth, except this statement”
The analogous statement would be:“ I always lie, except in this statement”
This is apparently self-consistent and specific, but in fact it can be simultaneously true and false.

If the exception clause is true, then the statement is true.
(t=>T)
Ifthe exception clause is false, then the always lie clause still remains true, then the entire statement is true. (because the exception is a lie) But truth of the statement is in contradiction with consistent lying. So the statement must be false.
(f=>t=>T=>F)

Similar reasoning reveals fundamental logical inconsistencies with postmodernism.

// fickle choice in what, and when to believe

// Post modernism is not mere benign subjectivity, but the insidious intentional ignorance of due objectivity under a convenient excuse of ‘enlightened’ tolerance.

It should be acknowledged that much of reality can be described only within the limits of physical perception, but that is entirely different from equating reality with perception. 

Recall the fable of some blind men trying to describe an elephant by touch, each feeling only a part of its body. They returned with vastly differing accounts – the one who felt  the trunk said it was a snake, the one who felt a limb said it was a tree etc. Despite each account containing some element of truth, all were completely wrong. When a sighted man finally gave them an accurate description, they replied “we can’t see if you yourself are blind or not, so we take it we’re all correct.” That is a picture of post-modernism – embracing contradictory “truths” without challenging error, under the excuse of “tolerance”.

The new-age movement is the most insidious culmination of post-modernist philosophy, in which justice and morality become relative, then irrelevant, and finally altogether non-existent. It elevates sin and crime to “inconveniences”, degrades conscience to a “social illusion”, and renders consciousness meaningless.

But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Similarly, immeasurability and/or imperceptibility does not imply imprecision or non-existence. Absolute truth must, and does exist. The earth is not flat simply because one cannot see its curvature from ground level. One is not dead simply by falling into dreamless sleep devoid of consciousness and memory.

The Biblical position is this - the Creator of all things arbitrarily and absolutely defines truth, and reveals it to any creature, in any degree He pleases.

Exd 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I [am] the LORD that healeth thee.

Truth and falsehood are simply what God deems them to be. An analogy with good and evil:
Statements like "God is good" or "God is just" sometimes build the misconception that there exists some separate, cosmic moral-judicial system to which God is subject, and by which He is evaluated. But is not that God falls on the good side and Satan the bad; Rather, good falls on God's side and Satan falls outside.
God's character, actions and whatever He approves are - by arbitrary definition - "good"; whatever He disdains is evil. God is always right because He decides what right and wrong are. His character is definitive basis for justice and morality, not the other way around. Such are the absolute prerogatives of supreme position. That is in essence the meaning of Divine Holiness.
Job 38:4   Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5   Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6   Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

1Cr 2:10   But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

// If truth can be spiritually and selectively revealed, then:

should this be the primary channel of enrichment for believers?
should believers actively seek supernatural visions and epiphanies?
should believers passively accept that only a few gifted 'charismatic' leaders are selected to receive special revelation (in this age)?

//Beware pentacostal and charismatic teachings.

Mar 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.
Mat 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

Hbr 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Pe 1:16   For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17   For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2Pe 1:18   And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
2Pe 1:19   We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20   Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21   For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

// Spiritual revelation has its place in faith, but it is somewhat selective, and possibly subjective. Thus it should not receive exclusive attention to the neglect of all else.

The believer's primary source of truth scriptural revelation - an infallible standard, authoritative reference, and objective benchmark - an all-sufficient basis for faith and doctrine.

 

 

3. Apparent Biblical incompatibilities with science

3.1. Omnipotence , omniscience

Infinity is an uncomfortable subject
 
3.1.2. "To say that God created 'out of nothing' is to confess the mystery, not explain it."

Conservation of mass-energy is violated. Creation rests upon an asserted axiom which can neither be proven nor disproven.

But Mass-energy need not be conserved where God is concerned. "Something out of nothing" is incomprehensible to the finite human mind, which is familiar with fixed quantities, beginnings and ends.

The "axiom" in Genesis must be accepted by faith because: (i) It is beyond mortal reason (ii) It is consistent with observed phenomena e.g.: biological function and design; replicable physical rules which govern the behaviour of  mass-energy
Hebrews 11:3 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.

3.1.3. An arbitrary "In the beginning", without definition or justification.

If beginning is taken to be the initiation of time, than the term ‘before’ is inapplicable to ‘beginning’, because “before” is a preposition of time.

God is not confined within the universe, and therefore not subject to its workings. Rather, the universe falls within the mind of God, who transcends space, time, reason, life and death.”

Act 17:28   For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

3.2. Origin of life

3.2.1. Miller-Urey experiment
This experiment demonstrated the possibility of amino acid synthesis by random interaction of constituent elements in a high-energy environment, and is often (wrongly) touted as evidence for evolution of all life from a primordial soup.
It is observed that in biological systems, amino acids may be synthesised from DNA, but the converse is not true. The experiment did not produce any DNA, or hint at how they may have arisen from amino acids.
Furthermore, amino acids on their own are relatively simple compounds, and pale in complexity when compared with the vastly convoluted protein arrays which effectively constitute the entire cell. The experiment failed to demonstrate synthesis of even simple peptides from the amino acids.
Finally, random elemental interaction at high-energy levels contrasts starkly with the precise, energy-efficient mechanism by which the specific proteins are decoded from DNA.
At best, the experiment is little more than a fun but superficial chemical curiosity; at worst it is a devious red herring to distract impulsive theorists from the true origin of life.    
3.2.2. Microbial genetic modification
The remarkable frequency of genetic exchange - and the consequential rapid pace of bacterial mutation - strongly suggests that they having been evolving for a substantial period. This does not necessarily contradict the Genesis principal of conservative reproduction ("after its / his kind"), which was applicable only to plants, mammals, fish, birds, man etc.; excluding microbes, insects, worms etc
The Genesis "conservative-reproducer list" seems to include only sentient creatures, whose collective beings are clearly greater than the sum of their material parts - consciousness being the differential over physiological composition. Perhaps this should be considered a new definition for life, a more precise discriminant between living and non-living chemical reactions (whether or not they are self-sustaining). In other words, reproductive ability need not be a fundamental, definitive criterion. After all, viruses are considered as complex self-replicating chemical compounds or reproductive non-living things.
This leads to a new postulate explanation for the fundamental biological dichotomy between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Perhaps the former were the result of satanic biochemical dabbling, or even devious strategies to mislead from Theistic Creationism to Evolution. Perhaps only the latter constitute creation of divine origin.  

//** Some closure to our brief (somewhat open-ended) discussion on the necessity of resolving certain difficulties pertaining to science and scripture.

While the believer should be cautious about answering skeptics and cynics on their terms, s/he need not absolutely refrain from doing so, especially if Biblical terms can be introduced in sound defense.

In fact, s/he is duty-bound to -within ability- seek and provide such a response. 

Biblical faith is no excuse for conveniently ignoring pertinent issues and challenges to scripture phrased in 'unfamiliar terms'. To refuse an answer would be negligent retreat into ignorance and indifference. “don’t know, don’t care”.

3.2.3 Natural Selection

Natural Selection is often hijacked by evolutionists to promote their theory. Their reasoning goes like this: possessors of a particular advantageous trait will live longer and reproduce more, thus amplifying that trait in their species’ gene pool. The converse is true of disadvantageous traits. So continued amplification of a trait can continue until it changes a species into a new one.

But if the disadvantaged deviations are constantly being culled, then the status quo of the species is maintained. Natural selection is thus a conservative process and inhibits mutation and evolution. Furthermore, there’s a limit on how much advantage any trait can confer. So there will be an equilibrium reached in which the advantaged members of a species outnumber the less advantaged, but not overwhelm or replace them. Therefore advantageous traits cannot be amplified out of control until they change the species. Thus the status-quo bell curve, or the Natural Distribution curve, is maintained.

3.2.4. Mechanistic problems with Evolution
Consider the generic body of a higher organism, and attempt to trace an evolutionary path backward i.e. obtain this organism from primordial goo, but observing the conditions necessary for consistency with irreducible complexity.

All its specialised organs must have orginated simultaneously.

Each organ must have been instantaneously assembled from various specialised cells.

Each specialised cell must have evolved from some primeval variant due to survival incentive as Natural Selection requires. Hence, each specialised cell must have some superior feature which confers upon it greater hardiness than the original. Clearly, this is not the case. Many specialist cells are considerably more vulnerable than generic ones.

But critics will argue that specialised cells are less vulnerable because their collective interaction confers increased survivability on the whole organism. This implies that all the cells must have completed evolving their specialisations and been assembled into the organism at a single instant. This is necessary given the irreducible complexity of the organism and its subsystems. It would not have been possible to have a whole stomach evolve from a cellular enclave without the rest of the mammalian body, let alone a stomach wall without glands.

Hence, further implied is the extremely close proximity of all the specialised cells from the start – they must have all shared the same habitat, subject to the same physical and chemical environment. Why, then, would generic primordial cells have such divergent evolutionary solutions to common survival requirements?

Critics may again refute the necessity of simultaneous and instantaneous assembly, citing ‘evolution’ of the embryo first into a foetus, then into the full-fledged organism. But even if evolution coaxed primordial goo into a stem cell some time in history, where were the hormones necessary for it to proceed from embryonic to foetal stage? Where was the womb?

 

3.2.5. Biblical position
The Bible explicitly declares the truth of Creation and completely excludes evolution. A true Bible-believer is necessarily a creationist. The first 2 chapters of Genesis clearly give an account of creation; Gen 1:24 states that procreation is consistent replication, and does not gradually alter any species over many cycles. However, extinction is not impossible.

A noisy but influential minority of evolutionists in the scientific community constantly attacks the Bible. Very often, if not always, their assaults are little more than sophisticated slander, expressing a desperate desire for a loophole with which to circumvent God, rather than presenting concrete, rational challenges. Viewed from an unbiased, secular and scientific perspective, creation and evolution are just plausible hypotheses. Of the two, creation is obviously more consistent and able to account for observed phenomena. Evolutionists cannot even begin to suggest a consistent, chemical pathway from primordial goo to human being, though they insist there must exist one. Occasionally they might make comments like “Humans first started out as viruses” or “The most recent node in the evolutionary pathway of humans was its divergence from the ape family”, but they can hardly put any links between these ends of their evolutionary chain. A creationist doesn’t even need to think before explaining the origin of life.

Quoting from Henry M. Morris’ book entitled “That Their Words May Be Used Against Them- Quotes from Evolutionists Useful for Creationists”: “Not long ago evolutionists tended to ignore creationists, assuming them to be uneducated Bible-thumpers, but the situation is different now. There are now thousands of scientists who have become creationists, and evolutionists have lost several hundred formal scientific debates to creationists in the past twenty years. Even though evolutionists still hold rigid control over the school and media, they can no longer ignore creationists. Over 50 anti-creationist books and many hundreds of anti-creationist articles have been published in recent years. These have intimidated many evangelicals into various compromises, but creationism continues to gain adherents in significant numbers.”

It is a little known fact that there exists a majority of creationists in scientific professions and disciplines, who are either less vocal than their evolutionist counter-parts, or are frequently censored by the likes of National Geographic or Discovery Channel.

It is true that Divine creation has never been observed in a laboratory, but neither has evolution. There is no scientific evidence to rank the Theory of (Molecular) Evolution over the Genesis account.

Evolutionism is a hard-nosed and desperate attempt to explain life by a series of ridiculously random, convoluted and improbable chemical processes simply to get by without God. This blatantly opposes observation and logic, in that vast networks of intricate structure and function clearly bear the signature of Divine design rather than random chemistry.

In fact, Evolution Theory is possibly in conflict with scientific philosophy – Science should seek to fit theory into fact, not fact into theory.

The reason for much pseudo-scientific denunciation of Genesis is essentially a personal anti-religious agenda. The strongest proponents of Evolution are also the most stubborn atheists and agnostics.

3.3. Resurrection

Mat 22:31   But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Mat 22:32   I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Mat 22:33   And when the multitude heard [this], they were astonished at his doctrine.
Act 26:8   Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?

Jhn 11:36   Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him!
Jhn 11:37   And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?
Jhn 11:43   And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
Jhn 11:44   And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Jhn 11:45   Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

Jhn 12:9   Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.
Jhn 12:10   But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;
Jhn 12:11   Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.
Jhn 12:17   The people therefore that was with him when he called Lazarus out of his grave, and raised him from the dead, bare record.
Jhn 12:18   For this cause the people also met him, for that they heard that he had done this miracle.

//resurrection of Lazarus a cue for resurrection of Christ
Luk 24:48   And ye are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49   And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Luk 24:50   And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
Luk 24:51   And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52   And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

//eyewitness account by a physician

4. Biblical consistency with scientific and historical findings; Prophetic accuracy

4.1. Consistent natural, physical laws.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Theistic creationism teaches that the cosmos and all life within it are the creation of God. This is indeed very consistent with simple and complex observations. Scientists can identify consistent physical laws which govern matter, space, energy and time, but cannot explain why or how these laws are enforced. The universe behaves like some astronomical piece of software, clearly the work of some Divine Programmer. Order and function in life are plainly the design of omniscient God, who alone can balance every variable and parameter an ecosystem requires.
Scripture teaches that biological death was imposed by God as punishment for, and release from sinful mortality.
Genesis 2:16   And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Genesis 2:17   But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 3:19   In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.
Genesis 3:22   And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Reproductive ability and instinct was ingrained into life by His blessing and for His dominion.
Genesis 1:27   So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 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.
But such laws do not confer upon nature any sacred or divine status. To revere or even deify nature as animists do is to elevate creation over Creator. In fact some physical laws are corruptions – cosmic repercussions of the Adamic fall.

Examples:
(i) 2nd law of thermodynamics :

The classical thermodynamic definition of “entropy” is “a measure of the amount of energy in a physical system that cannot be used to do work”. This is energy that is inevitably unproductive and wasted.

In statistical thermodynamics, entropy is envisioned as a measure of the statistical "disorder" of the thermodynamic system, the amount of uncertainty that would remain about the exact microscopic state of the system, given a description of its macroscopic properties.

Both definitions of entropy have been shown to be equivalent.

Having understood entropy, we can now appreciate the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “the total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value”. In essence, this law specifies the universal tendency towards disorder in the state of matter and deterioration in the quality of energy over time.

The parallels with the Second Law in scripture quoted by Willmington are more convincing and easier to see. The [Genesis] passages here all describe a basic tendency of creation, particularly Man, towards deterioration and disorder.  

It may even be argued that biological death is a further consequence of universal entropy – Physiological and anatomical order all eventually succumb to chaotic flux. 

(ii) The necessity of the food chain for continued ecological function might in a limited sense be considered a biological law. But that is no reason for glorifying wild predation and cannibalism as a Divine signature.

At least some of these punitive physical laws will be revoked in new heaven and earth.

1Cr 6:3   Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

Rev 4:6And before the throne [there was] a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, [were] four beasts full of eyes before and behind.

//***Adventurous speculation concerning the relevance of the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics : The entropy of a pure crystalline substance = 0 at 0 K.
Rev 21:11   Having the glory of God: and her light [was] like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

 

Isa 11:6   The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isa 11:7   And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isa 11:8   And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
Isa 11:9   They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

 

4.3 Messianic prophecies

The messianic prophecies are highly important because they authenticate Christ, on whom the Christian faith rests. Had they not been fulfilled, Christ would have been exposed by scripture as a fraud, the Church would have been preaching false salvation for 2 millennia, and all true believers should return to Judaism to resume the wait for Messiah.
Some Messianic prophecies are more attention-grabbing than others, because of their remarkably accuracy on trivial details, and because they were fulfilled unwittingly by unbelievers.

 

4.3.1. Parting of the garments (Psalm22:18, Luke23:34, John 19:23-24) Psalm 22 is a messianic psalm, which paints a vivid picture of the crucifixion centuries in advance. Psalm 22:1 alone can be distinctly recognised as “Eli Eli lama sabachthani ” from Mathew 27:46.  What of the parting of garments? According toThe Fourfold Gospel (1914) J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton, “A quaternion or band of four soldiers did the work of the actual crucifixion. The Roman law awarded them the garments of the condemned as their perquisites.”
Even the petty legal details of were anticipated in Psalms. And the soldiers definitely could not have been believers attempting to fulfill the prophecy, given the sheer impiety of the act.

4.3.2. Bone-breaking (Psalm 34:20, John 19:33-36) Breaking the shin bones of crucifixion victims was indeed a common Roman practice. That Christ was an exception predicted centuries before the Roman Empire even began is clearly divine design. The soldiers would have had no idea that their trivial decision to leave Jesus bones intact would fulfill a centuries-old prophecy. 

The earliest-pronounced messianic prophecy is Genesis 3:15. God referred not to the seed of just any woman, and not to just any offspring of Eve. The genealogy of Luke 3:23 – 38 traces Jesus mortal ancestry far back to Adam (who “was the Son of God”). Herein is the reason for Jesus’ title of “Second Adam”.  

4.4. Prophecies on the reconstitution of Israel

The reconstitution of the nation of Israel is a very contemporary event, which started out as the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. That Israel could resist and defeat the combined military might of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq is very clearly divine overruling of the circumstances. It follows a prophetical trend of successfully predicting highly improbable events.

5. Ethical issues in science and religion

5.1. Abortion, Embryonic stem-cell research
Psalm 22:10   I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother's belly.
Psalm 71:6   By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels: my praise [shall be] continually of thee.
The above Psalms are declarations of Divine foreknowledge and omniptence, but not conclusive evidence that conscious, human life always begins at conception. Just because God has known every individual since the embryonic stage does not imply that every embryo is, or will become, an individual. After all, God has known every individual even before creation (and predestined some), but that certainly does not mean there was human life then.
Ephesians 1:4   According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Ephesians 1:5   Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
1Peter 1:2   Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Job 38:4   Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
An embryo/fetus has no awareness of self or surroundings because its sensory and intellectual faculties are effectively non-existent; its observed responses to various stimuli are due entirely to involuntary, instinctive reflex, hence it cannot be held morally responsible for its actions. It therefore lacks an important, distinctive attribute and criterion by which humanity is defined.
It is difficult, if not impossible to determine the exact moment at which rudimentary biological tissue becomes the seat of a soul, let alone when a child becomes morally responsible for his/her actions. That is knowledge for God alone to possess and withhold.
However, Divine Law specifically condemns intentional destruction of a fetus /embryo as a sin, whether or not it is considered human.
Exodus 21:22  If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall
be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine].
Valid exceptions to this include abortion when continued pregnancy endangers the life of both mother and foetus, or when pregnancy is forced upon the mother. Pregnancy arising from sexual atrocity is analogous to a parasitic infection, the abortion of which should be considered medical treatment. If it is considered a sin, then the perpetrator shall solely bear the guilt.
//castration, death penalty?
6. Epilogue
Science and religion are wholly separate disciplines, but with similar purposes – to define, describe and predict. Man wants to find the truth – the fundamental, universal order underlying all phenomena, and use that to decrypt future events.

Science is not in conflict with the Christian faith, only atheistic and agnostic scientists are.

If employed within its limits, science is a reasonable and reliable method of inquiry.

Under the proxy skirmish of science versus religion lie deeper issues of perception, belief and truth. See to believe, or believe to see? Faith is neither alone, but both.

Jhn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.
Jhn 11:40Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

Many have seen, but – in perhaps ignorance, indifference or insolence - not believed.
Deu 1:30   The LORD your God which goeth before you, he shall fight for you, according to all that he did for you in Egypt before your eyes;
Deu 1:31   And in the wilderness, where thou hast seen how that the LORD thy God bare thee, as a man doth bear his son, in all the way that ye went, until ye came into this place. Deu 1:32   Yet in this thing ye did not believe the LORD your God,

Others have believed, but not seen yet.
Hbr 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

And more have believed wrong, only to see wrongly. 
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Act 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

Act 14:11   And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.
Act 14:12   And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.

Faith is not blind, but discerning.
1Th 5:21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

1Jo 4:1¶Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

 

Final revelation of truth
1Cr 13:9   For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
1Cr 13:10   But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
1Cr 13:11   When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1Cr 13:12   For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

True wisdom acknowledges the limits of reason, and continues with faith.
1 Corinthians 1:25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men;and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Proverbs 3:5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

08.02.08 Thu 8 pm
1Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Peter 2:14  Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

In principle, it is Divine Sovereignty which admits leaders to, or debars them from, political rulership.

But in practice, it is mortal will which installs or deposes rulers – Hereditary-Monarchical succession, Military-Dictatorial imposition, Revolutionary Insurrection and Democratic Election are all human systems of political selection.

This presents a problem of distinguishing between Divinely appointed leaders and criminal counterfeits.

It cannot be that every self-proclaimed and self-imposed “authority” must receive recognition and submission. Just as it is presumptuous to conveniently equate any and every status quo with Divine will, so it is presumptuous to claim that oppressors who retain power without (or despite) opposition are holders of Divine Mandate,

Romans 13:3  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Romans 13:4  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Submission to "authorities" is conditional to their conduct. Scripture clearly defines consistent punishment and deterrence of evil as fundamental criteria for legitimate rulership. Political tyrants fall far short of that definition, since they themselves constitute an evil deserving of punishment. Hence it is fallacious, contradictory and negligent to preach tolerance - let alone submission - towards them. Submission to savages in power is effectively collusion with criminal organisations.

There is no scriptural violation in the establishment of new authorities to abolish, usurp and punish old, oppressive governments. In such a scenario, the new authorities are not rebels, but legitimate  “revengers to [execute] wrath upon (the old) that doeth evil”,  fully consistent with Romans 13:4

(Of course, if the incumbents intoxicate themselves with military and material excesses in the process, then they should join their predecessors in the pit of condemnation.)

Moreover, scripture does not forbid the Church to depose, and dispose of demonic despots.  In fact,
“ Act 5:29   Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”

To withhold forceful intervention against violent rulers is to abet their crimes under a passive excuse of peace, when none truly exists. And evil prospers while good men exercise restraint.

09-05-2007
Punishment of ignorant offenders is not entirely consistent with divine character. If God conveniently includes and enforces the legal clause "Ignorance of the Law is insufficient defence", then His judicial system differs little from secular ones. When Abimelech took Sarah to wife after Abraham falsely declared her to be his sister (instead of spouse), God acquitted Abimelech on grounds of his ignorance of the truth. In God's own words to Abimelech,
Genesis 20:6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

God declared clear Abimelech’s conscience. In the final judgment, righteous and omniscient God will certainly weigh individually the degree of genuine ignorance and intent.
Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Romans 2:5   But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Romans 2:6   Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

13.04.08 Sun
Reflection on Rev David Wong’s sermon:

Baptism is viewed (especially) by non-believers as permenant, legally-binding, and irrecvocable. It is  the public declaration of a life sentence.

But it is a life sentence, in that it is annulment of a death sentence.

Saying "there can be no Good without Evil" is like saying one cannot see White without seeing Black.

03-11-2007
Corporate responsiblity is no excuse for indiscriminate, collective, militaristic punishment. Surely God is no Almighty despot deity who must resort to undue violence and collateral damage just to prove a point, especially since He personally commanded that children not be punished for their parents' offences. 

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Corporate responsibilty cannot explain the eradication of Achen's kin, since this would have mandated the execution of Achen's closest comrades as well. They were nearest him when he pilfered defiled loot and stood the highest chance of stopping him.

Ultimately, there is no good justification for the total annihilation of Achen's family, save sparing them the potential prejudice and discrimination from their neighbours. Perhaps this was an act of mercy killing. We might presume that died quickly from petrifi-concussed crania.

This also offers an explanation for the immediate execution of adulterers - It might have served the pragmatic purpose of early abortion. Should extra-marital conception have occurred and the illegitimate child carried to term, s/he would not only be orphaned, but also potentially subject to stigma and abuse in primitive society prone to passing indiscriminate judgement.  

10-06-2007
1Chronicles 13:6   And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, [that is], to Kirjathjearim, which [belonged] to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of God the LORD, that dwelleth [between] the cherubims, whose name is called [on it].
1Chronicles 13:7   And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart.
1Chronicles 13:9   And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled.
1Chronicles 13:10   And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.

It is difficult to explain the execution of Uzza for touching the Ark in an attempt to prevent its fall. Had he allowed the ark to topple from the stumbling oxen, he would have been charged for negligence. Yet intervention cost him his life. Either way he was a dead man.

Even more puzzling is why David employed no priests to escort the ark, but instead allowed 2 commoners to drive it. The fact that David feared to continue transporting the ark after Uzza's death suggests strongly he had brought no priests with him, which leads to the question of how they placed the ark on the new cart.

Perhaps the ark had been in no danger of damage, but Uzza simply used the jolt as an excuse to touch it. 

13-05-2007 Sunday

Psalm 22:10   I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother's belly.
Psalm 71:6   By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels: my praise [shall be] continually of thee.

The above Psalms are declarations of Divine foreknowledge and omniptence, but not conclusive evidence that conscious, human life always begins at conception. Just because God has known every individual since the embryonic stage does not imply that every embryo is, or will become, an individual. After all, God has known every individual even before creation (and predestined some), but that certainly does not mean there was human life then.
Ephesians 1:4   According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Ephesians 1:5   Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
1Peter 1:2   Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Job 38:4   Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

An embryo/fetus has no awareness of self or surroundings because its sensory and intellectual faculties are effectively non-existent; its observed responses to various stimuli are due entirely to involuntary, instinctive reflex, hence it cannot be held morally responsible for its actions. It therefore lacks an important, distinctive attribute and criterion by which humanity is defined.

It is difficult, if not impossible to determine the exact moment at which rudimentary biological tissue becomes the seat of a soul, let alone when a child becomes morally responsible for his/her actions. That is knowledge for God alone to possess and withhold.

However, Divine Law specifically condemns intentional destruction of a fetus /embryo as a sin, whether or not it is considered human.
Exodus 21:22  If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall
be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine].

Valid exceptions to this include abortion when continued pregnancy endangers the life of both mother and foetus, or when pregnancy is forced upon the mother. Pregnancy arising from rape is analogous to a parasitic infection, the abortion of which should be considered medical treatment. If it is considered a sin, then the rapist shall solely bear the guilt. And we might consider castrating it in public for extra deterrence.   

02.05.08 Fri 10pm
Divine foreknowledge and tolerance of evil is not Divine endorsement thereof, let alone insistence thereon. In that respect, there is no moral error in attempting to prevent Armageddon and its lesser pre-incarnations. In fact, such prevention is arguably a moral responsibility of believers.  Unfortunately however, that contradicts the absolute certainty of Divinely inspired prophecy.

20-11-2006 Monday

It is sad to note that the few men unfortunate enough to cross paths with David in love triangles were all tragic losers. Nabal and Uriah lost their lives and wives - Abigail and Bathsheba respectively. (1 Samuel 25:36-40, 2 Samuel 12:9) Phaltiel lost Micah and possibly his sanity. (2 Samuel 3:14-16) Of the three losers, perhaps only Nabal deserved it. (1 Samuel 25:3)   

25-05-2007
The Trinity does not consist of 3 incomplete parts of God, but God in 3 distinct persons and offices, fulfilling different facets of divine will. They always co-exist and co-operate, and are each fully God.

There is no physical analogy or poetic metaphor to even approximate this mysterious concept, and the only way to approach it is complete acceptance of its scriptural description.

13th November 2007, 4 pm

Statements like "God is good" or "God is just" sometimes build the misconception that there exists some separate, cosmic moral-judicial system to which God is subject, and by which He is evaluated. But is not that God falls on the good side and Satan the bad; Rather, good falls on God's side and Satan falls outside.

God's character, actions and whatever He approves are - by arbitrary definition - "good"; whatever He disdains is evil. God is always right because He decides what right and wrong are. His character is definitive basis for justice and morality, not the other way around. Such are the absolute prerogatives of supreme position.

11th January 2007 Friday
Repentance is the sum of both remorse and reformation. Either can stand without the other, but neither alone is sufficient.

19.01.08 Sat
1 Corinthians 11 is often misinterpreted as evidence for Christian chauvinism and sexism.

But there is no moral basis for prescription of hair length. That cannot be justified with, nor expressed in terms of any of the ten commandments.
Moreover, how can “nature show that it is a shame for men to long hair” when male hair also naturally grows without limit?

11th January 2008 Friday 9:30 pm
One might remark that Israel’s biblical military campaigns in the promised land were genocidal jewish jihads/crusades. But the divine mandate of utter extermination strictly forbade exploitation and torture of civilians or looting of their property. There was only room for swift, merciful annihilation.
It might have been considered mercy killing to terminate the rampant cannibalistic, pagan tribal rituals of human sacrifice, some of which required immolation of live subjects.

10.01.08 9:50 am
John 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.
Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

The compassionate soul often entertains the possibility that handicapped beggars are actually disguised angels, not that merit for alms might be claimed, but in sincere hope that much suffering is illusory, and much pain pretended.