I Don't Know!

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. ….  By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. …. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for he who comes to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of those who seek Him.[1]

It is not weakness for a Christian to say “I don’t know”. In fact if you can’t say “I don’t know”, that might indicate a weakness of faith. Atheists and others who do not believe in God or Jesus assume an air of superiority due to their knowledge. It is unkind to point out to Atheists that their knowledge is phony, or that their knowledge is built on a foundation of assumed reality. Neither a Christian or Atheist witnessed the beginning of the world and universe; therefore, neither can say with absolute certainty what happened. Atheists deny belief plays any part in their conclusions. In order not to shatter their world, Christians should not point out the fallacy in their reasoning. John Powell in his book “Why Am I Afraid to Tell You Who I Am”, spoke of the importance of saving face. It is vital to understand that people cope with life by building façades behind which they function. The Christian must recognize that Atheists cannot cope without the façade of non-belief. It is impossible for an Atheist to see that factual support for their knowledge is non-existent. Most of what Atheists hold as true, is based on what they want to be true, which is delusional. Christians speak from a faith based perspective, and should not be drawn into the Atheist’s field of non-belief and fictional reality. The Bible is not a scientific text book, it’s not even a history text. The numerous books that make up the Bible reflect God’s dealing with people from the beginning. There is harmony around God’s revelation to people. From beginning to end, God unfolds his plan to reconcile people to himself. There is bound to be confusion as people endeavour to comprehend the infinite in finite terms. The existence of God, the creation, or the resurrection of Jesus, cannot be verified or disproved by observation or experiment. There is a wealth of evidence for the existence of God, the creation, and Jesus resurrection. However, the Christian’s belief in God is not based on evidence, but on faith.

Did the entire world population come from two people?  

Scientist:

Population geneticists, whose discipline involves the use of mathematical tools to reconstruct the history of populations of animals, plants, or bacteria, look at these facts about the human genome and conclude that they point to all members of our species having descended from a common set of founders, approximately 10,000 in number, who lived about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago. This information fits well with the fossil record, which in turn places the location of those founding ancestors most likely in East Africa.[2]

Scientist:

The genetic evidence is consistent with human DNA being “young” and the human race beginning with a very small starting population (the Bible tells us the starting population was two people!).

  The International HapMap project endeavors to study a select group of DNA similarities and differences between humans known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).5 The SNPs are believed to be representative of the genome (total human DNA) such that what is true for them would be true for the whole genome. These studies and others have shown that the difference in DNA between any two humans is amazingly low . . . only 0.1 percent.

  Reflecting on this very low percentage, some scientists posited, “This proportion is low compared with those of many other species, from fruit flies to chimpanzees, reflecting the recent origins of our species from a small founding population” (emphases mine).7 They also stated, “[Certain genetic estimates] tell us that humans vary only slightly at the DNA level and that only a small proportion of this variation separates continental populations.”8

  These findings are consistent with the Bible’s history that humans were created several thousands years ago; in other words, a short amount of time has passed, so there is little genetic variation.[3]

Scientists do not agree on the world’s beginning. Evolution is said to have occurred over billions of years. During that time, “nothing”, through accident, mutation, and aberration, successfully evolved into life forms that exist today. That is a cynical explanation of how the world population originated. The non-existence of God, or evolution cannot be verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

Then God said, "Let Us make man in our image, according to our likeness;" …. God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.[4]

I believe that God created the first man and woman. After being ousted from the garden Adam “called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.”[5] The word translated “living” included all life. It is used of animals and all creatures. The word doesn’t denote only the future, but included everything that was living at that time. It appears to me that “Eve” was a title of honour rather than a description.

We don’t know how much time elapsed between when the statement, “the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed”^[6] was made, and “the serpent …. said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"^[7] We have a tendency to think in terms of days because the creation narrative talked about the days of creation. The paradise or garden, in which man lived was intended to be endless. There was no corruption, no decay, and no death. The best we can say is that after some time, who knows how long… the serpent spoke to the woman… and the woman spoke to the snake. That seems very strange to us, but apparently not to the woman. If it had been unexpected or unusual, we could expect surprise or an exclamation, but reading the account the woman conversed with the snake as though it were an everyday occurrence. Eve’s conversation with the snake changed everything, and I mean everything!

The man and woman were driven from the garden which was then guarded by “cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.”[8] God cursed the snake saying, “On your belly you will go…”[9] If snakes at that time crawled on their bellies as they do today, how would God’s curse have been a punishment. Would we be correct in thinking that up to that point, snakes possibly walked like other animals? There are many things connected to the creation and the time immediately following which are beyond our comprehension.

“Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD." Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”^[10] Cain killed his brother and as a result was banished. “Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city,”[11] The idea of banishment worried Cain and he told God that he would likely be killed be others in the land. Cain settled in the land of Nod; or the land of exile. The Hebrew and Greek translated “settled” both have a connotation of being married. The big questions are, who were the people Cain feared would kill him, and where did they, and his wife come from? The only answer I can give is, “I don’t know!” Some biblical scholars insist that Christians must defend the authenticity of scripture by providing answers for the question of Cain’s wife’s heritage. The response generally given is, “The only possible answer is that Cain's wife was his sister or niece or great-niece, etc.”[12]

It worries me when someone says, “The only possible answer is…” There is no more proof of the heritage of Cain’s wife, than saying she evolved from a single cell creature. It is dangerous to make categorical statements on subjects for which there is no biblical evidence. State an opinion, speak of possibilities, but don’t say there is only one answer. Again, a Christian does not have to resort to scientific reasoning to substantiate faith. I don’t know where Cain’s wife came from! In fact we are not told anything of her origin. All we know is that following his exile, Cain settled in the land of his wandering, and raised a family. He also built a city. I notice that Cain’s genealogy is separate from Adam’s.

Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, "God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him."[13]

Eve’s expression was that she had been given an offspring, she did not use the word for son. Eve’s exclamation suggests that the child she had given birth to was the first since the death of Abel. “Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.”[14] The language as I read it precludes the possibility of daughters before the birth of Seth.

Genesis 4 provides Cain’s lineage with no mention of Adam or Eve. The genealogy of Cain includes seven male descendants. Adam’s genealogy has twelve male offspring in the Genesis account. Luke’s genealogy of Jesus includes all of Adam’s descendants. Cain was not included in Adam’s genealogy. Between Genesis 4:25 and 4:26 there is 105 years. “To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD.”[15] The second phrase of the verse could be translated, “men began to proclaim the name of the Lord.” The words have different meanings, allowing as one commentator wrote as an option, “Then began men profanely to call upon the name of God, referring to the institution of idolatry.”[16]

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.[17]

“…the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful…” who were the sons of God and who were the daughters of men? My answer is again, “I don’t know.” In reading commentaries on the question regarding “the sons of God” I found a range of answers, from angels to the descendants of Seth. The latter seems more probable considering the statement “…began to call upon the name of the Lord.”[18] If the translation reflects a positive inclination toward God by Seth’s family, then his descendants might well have been called the “sons of God”. The daughters of men could have been the offspring of Cain and the people of the land east of Eden. Whatever solution people come up with is speculation. We are not told, and we do not know.

God sent a flood upon the earth; a flood that covered mountains.

“Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.”[19]

Can I prove that there was a universal flood? No, but I know that diluvian silt deposits are found in many areas of the world, which suggests a global flood at some point in antiquity. How could Noah’s three sons and their wives repopulate the world? And, how did all the animals in the world today come from those taken into the ark? I don’t know!” Was it a matter of mathematics or did God assist in the process? Again I don’t know.

By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.[20]

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,[21]

Who were “the spirits in prison?” I don’t know, but I believe that God sent his son into the world so that people would have the opportunity of being saved. Peter connected the flood with baptism. Water was the agent of Noah’s salvation from destruction, Peter said the water of baptism saved believers. God is the real agent in salvation. I believe that Jesus died and was raised from the dead. Why would I doubt the work of God’s love, when he gave his own son be crucified so that I can live. Creation, population, the flood, none of these are more important than Jesus sacrifice.

The account of David and Goliath has been trivialized by well-meaning Sunday school teachers. David is portrayed as a little boy in order to embellish the story. In the biblical account there is a message that Christians need to learn. Do not engage in battle on the opponent’s terms. Goliath taunted Israel with an invitation to fight him. The war would be won by the victor of one to one fight. The soldiers of Israel were paralyzed by fear, because it bought into the terms given by the enemy. David agreed to fight Goliath. When offered Saul’s armour he declined to use it because he was not accustomed to it. “David said, ‘The Lord who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine.’"[22] David was no match physically for Goliath, he was young, and unseasoned in armed combat. Atheists use the same tactics as Goliath, they claim intellectual superiority, they claim to have public opinion on their side, and they have evolutionary science backing them. The Christian may think that have to answer questions raised by Atheists, but that is not the turf on which our battle with them has to be fought. There are Christians who have advanced education and can engage Atheists in debate on their own ground, but for most of us we have to depend on our faith and the understanding that in reality Atheists do not have any proof supporting their position.

Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness. As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace. With all of these, take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.[23]

---

[1] Heb 11:1, 6

[2] The Language of God, Francis Collins

[3] https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/did-we-all-come-from-adam-and-eve/ - Dr. Georgia Purdom,

[4] Gen 1:26 

[5] Gen 3:20

[6] Gen 2:25 

[7] Gen 3:1 

[8] Gen 3:24

[9] Gen 3:14

[10] Gen 4:1, 2

[11] Gen 4:16, 17

[12] https://www.gotquestions.org/Cains-wife.html

[13] Gen 4:25

[14] Gen 5:4 

[15] Gen 4:26 

[16] The Pulpit Commentary

[17] Gen 6:1-4

[18] Gen 4:26

[19] Gen 7:23 

[20] Heb 11:7 

[21] 1Pe 3:18-21

[22] 1Sa 17:37 

[23] Eph 6:14-17

Power is Perfected in Weakness

Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.[1]

I see no point in wondering about Paul’s “thorn in the flesh”; the focus of his writing was God’s response to his prayers for the thorn to be gone, and also his reaction to what he was told. To those he wrote “I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” When things weren’t going the right way my mother used to say, “These little things are sent to try us.” I’m not sure that was theologically sound. That however didn’t matter because the notion helped my mother get through difficult times. That’s what I see happening with Paul. His response to having to put up with his thorn should be the response of every believer when faced with hard times, or problems. Certainly we need to ask God’s help either to get rid of some impediment, or learn to live with it.

…whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,[2]

Paul’s statement followed a catalogue of his achievements, his Hebrew status was impeachable. He was someone of note, a Hebrew among Hebrews. His attitude toward those achievements was the same as what he demonstrated when God told him to he’d have put up with his impediment. Paul had it made, position, qualification, and attitude to go with them. He willingly gave all of that up, and when told that Jesus could be seen clearer through his weakness than through perfection, his was excited to let it happen. His weakness became his strength.

My view on prayers of request is that one should pray for what he or she wants, and give thanks for whatever God provides. We shouldn’t expect an audible response from God, though some say they have had such. My experience has been to notice God’s response in how events unfold. I realized early in life that if I goofed off instead of studying, no amount of prayer resulted in good marks. Likely, God’s response was in the teacher’s comment, “Could do better if he applied himself.” Paul’s reflection on prayer did not include laziness or goofing off. Instead of falling back on previous achievements Paul saw his way forward, “I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” At the first sign of trouble my prayers usually focus on a fix to get things back to normal quickly. Somehow I have been able to look at Paul’s attitude without it having directly impacting mine. In the early phase of Christianity God worked with believers differently to what he does today. I don’t expect to have the interaction with God like the first believers. There’s a lot of confusion today about what one can expect from praying. Preachers of “the prosperity gospel” would have us believe that God wants us all to be rich. Others teach that God heals all people, all you have to do is pray.. Christians seem confused about what constitutes a valid prayer. Some denominations teach followers to recite the “Lord’s prayer”. There are prayers and instruction on prayers in the scriptures. Hezekiah prayed for delivery from the Assyrian army; God routed the enemy and saved his people.[3] At a later time Hezekiah became fatally ill and prayed; God answered his prayer and healed him.[4] Hannah prayed for a son and God answered her prayer, she gave birth to a son.[5] James taught on the power of prayer.[6] Jesus taught his disciples how to pray.[7] We are not living under the law in the time of the prophets, we are not living in the last days of the Jewish era when Christianity began.

We are living in the time defined by God’s love, a time of opportunity in which man can be united with God. We live in a world in which both the kingdom of God and the kingdom of evil coexist. Since Jesus’ death, people can choose whether to be in God’s kingdom or not. We do not pray for God’s kingdom to come to earth, it is on earth. Believers are in God’s kingdom. Prayer is communication with God the Father, and God the Creator. Paul’s prayer for relief was very specific, he asked God to remove an issue causing him discomfort. When God told him his weakness allowed Jesus’ strength to be seen, he stopped praying to have that issue removed. When we ask God for relief from some difficulty, or to be given something, we have to allow God to answer in his way. Teachers who say that God will give you prosperity, or even health, because you simply pray, are not always right. Their teaching doesn’t answer why sometimes what you pray for is not given. That’s not a problem if you are just asking for something you want, but don’t need. If it’s a matter of life and death, and sometimes you get what you asked for and other times you don’t, that, leaves a person wondering; was it how I prayed? Why did one person die and another healed? We need to look back to when Jesus was on earth; did he heal every sick person? We know he didn’t raise everyone who died at that time. Maybe if we can answer why Jesus didn’t heal everyone, or give life back to everyone who died, we could answer why God responds to prayer the way he does. James has some words on God answering prayers. I don’t know, and, don’t need to know, why the prayer for one person results in healing, and the prayer for another has a different result.

Then Nebuchadnezzar in rage and anger gave orders to bring Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego; then these men were brought before the king. Nebuchadnezzar responded and said to them, "Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up? Now if you are ready, at the moment you hear the sound of the horn, flute, lyre, trigon, psaltery and bagpipe and all kinds of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, very well. But if you do not worship, you will immediately be cast into the midst of a furnace of blazing fire; and what god is there who can deliver you out of my hands?" Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up."[8]

The attitude shown by the three accused is what we all should strive for. “…our God whom we serve is able to deliver us; …. But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” We believe, we trust, we pray, knowing that God can accomplish whatever we ask. However, we don’t know what God will do. Our attitude should be, that we will continue to believe, to trust, and to pray. The efficacy of prayer has little to do with how we pray, and everything to do with God’s will. We can’t and don’t need to understand, we have to live by faith.

Sometimes due to our circumstances it feels that we can’t do very much. There is someone we need to observe; Jesus watched as people donated money at the temple. The rich people gave generously, as Jesus watched he saw a widow put a couple of small coins into the container, Jesus told his disciples that the widow had contributed more than any of the others. Jesus said, that the rich gave from a position of wealth, but the widow from her poverty. The lesson for us is that God looks at things differently to how we see them. God is shown through the miracles of feeding many with very little to be able to increase our efforts exponentially. What may not seem like much to us is magnified by God.

---

[1] 2Co 12:7-10

[2] Php 3:7-9

[3] 2Ki 19:14-19

[4] 2Ki 20:1-6

[5] 1Sa 1:12-20

[6] Jas 5:13-18

[7] Mat 6:5-15

[8] Dan 3:13-18

You Either Believe or You don't

This book attempts to continue in the tradition of those scholars who have sought to provide a thoroughly (socio-) historical explanation for the rise of Christianity without having to resort to theological reasons. It also comes from what may be deemed, from the perspective of biblical studies, an untypical background. I have not found anything in particular that makes me think Christianity is in any way superior to any other movement, and its rise can be explained in human terms of social context, frequently discussed in' theological language in the primary sources.[1]

One difficulty I see with this statement is that it presents us with an oxymoron. Namely, that it appears to suggest Christianity would have occurred naturally without Christ. The author uses a quotation from Jacques Berlinerblau which, while accurately expressing the study habits of some religious scholars, also seems to describe some of his own practices. It is for a believer very difficult not to include theological reasoning when discussing the rise of Christianity. The (socio-) historical climate to which Crossley eludes, for me as a Christian, are factors to be taken into account when considering Paul’s statement, “…when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law…” According to Kittel the Greek word translated “fullness” has multiple meanings and it is not always easy to determine which meaning applies to a text. The Contemporary English Version writes, “…when the time was right…” The situations Crossley uses to support the non-theological causes leading to the rise of the Jesus movement are the same as those which made the time “right” for Jesus to be born.  

There is nothing unethical about a given scholar having religious beliefs. Things become potentially objectionable when a scholar in question studies these very same religious beliefs in his or her capacity as a scholar. The tendency of so many exegetes to come to conclusions that perfectly conform to their preexisting creedal convictions is something that members of our discipline will need to think about.[2]

Berlinerblau’s point is well taken, and I would add that it is not only religious scholars that “see what they believe”, historians and scientists produce works biased by the same impulse.

In spite of the admirable surge of interest in these new or newly understood materials, many historians in this field have failed to take into account the fresh insights from sociologists, anthropologists, and philosophers about the social nature of knowledge and personal identity, and their vital implications for historical study. The analytical methods derived from the work of sociologists of knowledge emphatically call into question the theories of historical development and the categories into which nineteenth- and many twentieth-century historians of Christian origins have classified the evidence. These historiographical missteps include the invention of artificial categories (such as the simplistic distinction between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism'), the projection of later developments into earlier times, and the rendering of supposedly historical judgments on the basis of modern philosophical preferences.[3]

Crossley does a good job in his book of identifying sociological factors which at the time he believes influenced the teaching of Jesus and provided the impetus for the development of the Jesus movement. As stated above, the same factors he suggests gave rise to the Jesus movement, I believe were components of what made the timing right for Jesus entry into the human domain. Crossley wrote, “I have not found anything in particular that makes me think Christianity is in any way superior to any other movement, and its rise can be explained in human terms of social context…” Crossley specifies boldly that Christianity is of sociological origins, and not superior to any other movement. I believe history suggests otherwise. Crossley I suspect came up with the conclusions he was seeking.

If the anthropological study of religion is in fact in a state of general stagnation, I doubt that it will be set going again by producing more minor variations on classical theoretical themes. …. In art, this solemn reduplication of the achievements of accepted masters is called academicism; and I think this is the proper name for our malady also. Only if we abandon, in a phrase of Leo Steinberg's, that sweet sense of accomplishment which comes from parading habitual skills and address ourselves to problems sufficiently unclarified as to make discovery possible, can we hope to achieve work which will not just reincarnate that of the great men of the first quarter of this century, but match it.

   The way to do this is not to abandon the established traditions of social anthropology in this field, but to widen them. At least four of the contributions of the men who, as I say, dominate our thought to the point of parochializing it Durkheim's discussion of the nature of the sacred, Weber's Verstehenden methodology, Freud's parallel between personal rituals and collective ones, and Malinowski's exploration of the distinction between religion and common sense-seem to me inevitable starting-points for any useful anthropological theory of religion. …. But I, at least, can see no other road of escape from what, referring to anthropology more generally, Janowitz has called the dead hand of competence.[4]

Having opened this postscript by emphasizing the need to study the community structure of science, I shall close by underscoring the need for similar and, above all, for comparative study of the corresponding communities in other fields. How does one elect and how is one elected to membership in a particular community, scientific or not? What is the process and what are the stages of socialization to the group? What does the group collectively see as its goals; what deviations, individual or collective, will it tolerate; and how does it control the impermissible aberration? A fuller understanding of science will depend on answers to other sorts of questions as well, but there is no area in which more work is so badly needed. Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special characteristics of the groups that create and use it.[5]

Kuhn’s comments apply to all disciplines. It is understandable that Crossley thinks religious scholars as stuck in their ways and guided by pre-conceived beliefs. It is also reasonable that religious scholars believe Crossley sees only what he wants to see. Kuhn suggests that being in different paradigms Crossley and religious scholars are unable if not unwilling to recognize value in each other’s positions, because they speak languages restricted to their own groups.

Christians must not discard legitimate findings of sociologists or historians simply based conclusions generated by their research. If cultural or sociological findings are accurate they will support the uniqueness of Christianity. From within his paradigm the sociologist will never see evidence pointing toward God, but that doesn’t mean there is no God. All that means is that unless the sociologist expands his paradigm to include the supernatural, he is incapable of recognizing God. Religious scholars can be blind to valuable discoveries by sociologists. Bible believers sometimes dismiss findings that are new to them, or those which do not fit with what they believe. If religious scholars are set on defending “traditional” truths, they are simply supporting the work of those who went before. That is a real shame, because we have so much more information and evidence than any of the scholars who established “tradition”. The accumulation of sociological or scientific data will never replace faith. Discoveries in other disciplines can support belief, but not substitute for faith.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. …. And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.[6]

Belief or faith is a Christian’s greatest asset. Faith is the key to revealing the wonder and glory of God. Faith allows believers to see things that others are blind to. Unbelievers cannot be expected to see the vast wealth of evidence which declares God’s existence. But believers see the world as expressed by the psalmist, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their utterances to the end of the world. In them He has placed a tent for the sun…”[7]

                                                                                                  

---

[1] Why Christianity Happened, James G. Crossley, pp. 33, 34

[2] Berlinerblau, The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take Religion Seriously, p110

[3] Howard Clark Kee, Who Are the People of God? p. 1

[4] Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures

[5] Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolution, p. 209

[6] Heb 11:1-3, 6

[7] Ps 19:1-4

The Man From Ethiopia

Then an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Get up and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." (This is a wilderness road.) So he got up and went. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go over to this chariot and join it." So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him. Now the passage of the scripture that he was reading was this: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer, so he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth." The eunuch asked Philip, "About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?" Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?" He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.[1]

Most commentators refer to the man from Ethiopia as a Gentile turned Jew. That may be the case since nothing is said of him other than he was from Ethiopia. However, there are longstanding traditions which could suggest he may well have been an Ethiopian Jew and not a Gentile. 

From the 7th century BCE up until 330 AD, Judaism was the official state religion of Ethiopia.[2]

Rabbi Paris speaks only of the “TABERNACLE OF THE LAW OF GOD” (which is otherwise known as the “ARK OF THE COVENANT”) that was allegedly transported Into Ethiopia from Israel with King Solomon'. son- "EMPEROR MENELIK 1st, “whose mother was the greatest monarch of her time - "EMPRESS MAKEDA" (commonly called 'QUEEN OF SHEBA" because her EMPIRE OF ETHIOPIA also Included the ‘KINGDOM OF YEMEN’ or 'SHEBA," sometimes said to have been the capital instead of the name of a country), In about ca. 970 B. C. E. as the sole "origin of the Agaw in Ethiopia."[3]

… Jews migrated to Ethiopia after the fall of the First Temple about 586 BCE.  According to another story, Jewish merchants entered Ethiopia from Yemen in the south and converted a black Cushite tribe, the Agaw, to Judaism and started a Jewish kingdom in Africa.

…some Jews did not cross from Egypt to Israel, at the time of the Exodus, but traveled over hundreds of years through Egypt.  Then they proceeded up along the Nile River to the north-western part of Ethiopia to Lake Tana.

In the 8th century BCE, Israel consisted of twelve tribes.  Ten of them lived in territory in the north.  Also, in the 8th century BCE, the powerful kingdom of the Assyrians invaded the north and conquered the Israelites. The ten tribes were scattered into many different regions. One of those tribes was the tribe of Dan. Our elders tell us they are the “lost tribe” of Israel that migrated into Ethiopia at the time to escape from the Assyrians. They settled in the Gondar region where I was born and where the Beta Israel live.[4]

“Now there was an Ethiopian…” Thayer’s Greek Definitions, give the meaning of the Greek word translated Ethiopian as, black. He was a man of Ethiopian heritage.

“He had come to Jerusalem to worship,” most probably an Ethiopian Jew on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to worship at Herod’s temple.

He was returning home; “seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.” One commentator wrote, “…reading a ‘newly acquired’ manuscript. There is nothing in Luke’s text to indicate it was “newly acquired”! It doesn’t say whether it was a complete manuscript or a fragment of a copy made by some scribe, the point was that he was reading the prophet Isaiah’s words on the sacrificial death of the Messiah.

“About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” A perceptive question.

“Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus.” We are left in the dark about the details of the conversation; what we do know is that it was the “good news”, and that whatever Philip said had life-changing impact.

“Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” Philip’s conversation on Jesus led the Ethiopian to want to be baptized at the first opportunity.

“Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.” Both went into the water.

“When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more...” It is quite amazing that the man from Ethiopia eagerly accepted Philip’s explanation of the prophet’s words, following through with being baptized. What is also amazing to me is that Philip was immediately removed from the scene.

Apparently unperturbed, the man from Ethiopia “...went on his way rejoicing.” This episode poses an enigma for institutional Christianity. That God would leave a new convert alone, with no more than Philip’s explanation of the prophecy, seems implausible. The focus of institutional Christianity is the Church. This event demonstrated the power of the word, and the effectiveness of the gospel. As Paul later wrote, the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.[5] It’s safe to say that there wasn’t a church in Ethiopia since we read that following the persecution by Saul, “…those who had been scattered went about preaching the word. Philip went down to the city of Samaria and began proclaiming Christ to them.[6] From Samaria Philip was sent to locate the Ethiopian. Christians fleeing persecution according to Luke shared the good news of Jesus wherever they went. Jesus told people about the kingdom of God, he assured people that through believing in him salvation was a reality. Churches are not against Jesus, but they are unnecessary for salvation. Churches often place unneeded layers of obligations on believers. They can become more of a hindrance than asset.

We can only guess why God would redirect Philip’s teaching from Samaria to a lone traveler on a wilderness road. One might conjecture that since the apostles visited Samaria giving the gift of the Spirit to believers, that Philip’s work there was done. Or we could speculate that the apostles with Peter may have taken over the work. Or, it might be that God had noticed a believing heart, struggling with the meaning of prophecy, and decided to help. Possibly, God may have chosen the Ethiopian man to be the witness of Jesus to other Jews in Ethiopia. It took many centuries for the world and Israel to recognize Ethiopian Jews, but God knew where they were all the time. Maybe, it was God’s way of ensuring that Jews would be first to benefit from the good news; “…you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”[7] These are all at best, guesses. What is certain is that belief in Jesus is the only way to be acceptable to God. Our individual relationship with Jesus, is our assurance of hope. To me, the man from Ethiopia represents a child of God by faith.

---

[1] Act 8:26-39

[2] https://unitedwithisrael.org/

[3] We the Black Jews, Volumes 1-2. By Yosef Ben-Jochannan, p345

[4] ETHIOPIAN JEWS ARE PART OF THE WORLDWIDE  JEWISH COMMUNITY, Yodit (Judith) Assefa

[5] Rom 1:16

[6] Act 8:4, 5

[7] Act 1:8 

Seeking Truth

Science is one of the few institutions remaining that seeks the truth. It is a highly effective tool that simply wants to figure out how the universe works. It is self-correcting, building on the knowledge of those who went before, and constantly improves on that knowledge as new technology comes along, such as bigger telescopes, or more sensitive instruments that let us see the world in better detail. It is a system that works because it is based on hard evidence.[1]

This quote from the article by Bob McDonald, Science “Trumped”' by belief, highlights the attitude that truth, to those who defer to science is objective and factual. While truth, if tainted by belief is faulty and of no account. I didn’t live in the dark ages, but back enough that when I attended high school I was taught that the atom was the smallest thing there was. At that time, I was taught objective scientific truth, which turned out later to be wrong. To McDonald scientific truth is very elastic, but still better than belief. His praise of science as “one of the few institutions remaining that seeks the truth” is somewhat naïve. Below are some quotes on science:

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science:  They are final, and they are binary.  Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof).  Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.  There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.  The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.  Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.  No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.^[2]

Black/white absolute truth doesn’t exist in real science. Many people state that science “seeks truth,” and it does, if we do not ascribe moral qualities to the word “truth.” Actually, science seeks evidence to support or refute a hypothesis (or some other scientific principle like a theory). It’s all about the evidence (and the quality thereof), not about proving that it’s either this or that.

Part of the problem, amongst both “pro-science” and anti-science types is that they both think that science is some magical word to either be loved or despised depending on the answer it provides. But science is, in reality, a coherent method to find an answer to a question about the natural universe, but it is not itself the answer. Science is a systematic and logical process, using the scientific method, that finds and builds data, and eventually knowledge, into testable explanations and predictions about the natural universe. It is not a magical word that implies truth, but it is a rigorous process to separate meaningless information from high quality evidence in support or refutation of an explanation of the natural world.[3] 

According to a popular picture, science progresses toward truth by adding true and eliminating false beliefs from our best scientific theories. By making these theories more and more verisimilar, that is, truthlike, scientific knowledge grows over time (e.g., Popper 1963). If this picture is correct, then over time scientific knowledge will become more objective, that is, more faithful to facts. However, scientific theories often change, and sometimes several theories compete for the place of the best scientific account of the world.[4]

Whatever it is, it should come as no surprise that finding a positive characterization of what makes science objective is hard. If we knew an answer, we would have done no less than solve the problem of induction (because we would know what procedures or forms of organization are responsible for the success of science). Work on this problem is an ongoing project, and so is the quest for understanding scientific objectivity.[5]

McDonald writes that science “is self-correcting, building on the knowledge of those who went before, and constantly improves on that knowledge as new technology comes along...” This is of course true, science changes as new evidence comes to light. At the point that new evidence is accepted, the old truth becomes false. So in the words of Pilate, “What is truth?” To those who believe everything science says, truth, is whatever science says, until more evidence comes along to suggest otherwise. McDonald believes that science is objective and true because it is based on hard evidence. There is more than enough hard evidence to suggest that current scientific truths will become obsolete or changed with the finding of newer evidence.

Each person’s previous experiences will have led to the development of particular concepts of things, which will influence what objects can be seen and what they will appear to be. As a consequence, it is not unusual for two investigators to disagree about their observations if the investigators are looking at the data according to different conceptual frameworks. Resolution of such conflicts requires that the investigators clarify for each other the concepts that they have in mind.[6]

With the changes that have taken place in physics in this century, however, the historicality of what counts as a fact in the natural sciences has been made evident and has raised the problem of just what facts are if they can change from time to time.[7]

Roughly speaking, the natural sciences are considered "hard", whereas the social sciences are usually described as "soft".

Precise definitions vary, but features often cited as characteristic of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, higher levels of consensus, faster progression of the field, greater explanatory success, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method.^[8]

Despite the volume of protestations from climate change scientists, their objectivity is less than perfect. It is obvious that climatic conditions in many parts of the world are changing in some way, but what is not obvious is the cause. Scientists touting anthropomorphic causes are blind to any other option. The foundation of their science is emotionality. Fanatical science is not good science, it is based on fear and panic. It appears that much of the evidence supporting anthropomorphic climate change is actually soft evidence. The statement that “97% of scientists believe that humans are the cause of climate change,” at best is soft evidence, if not deceitful. One of the main factors of evidence becoming hard evidence, is the consensus of scientists within that specific field of study. Which could be translated as, scientists of like mind support each other’s belief. That strikes me as “group think” and possibbly collusion.

In order of declining value, items on the soft-evidence scale include:

1. Authoritative opinion. (However: remember, even at the top of the soft-evidence scale, it’s still just soft evidence.)
2. Non-authoritative opinion.
3. Random guessing.
4. Seeing who argues the loudest and/or the longest. (This is worse than nothing, because it gives the biggest advantage to the biggest scoundrel, and just encourages bad behavior.)[9]

Science tells of the mini ice age; taking that as a starting point the world has definitely got a lot warmer. There is hard evidence that at one time the islands in the arctic were tropical, they are very much colder now. Egypt was once a fertile area, whereas now it is predominantly desert. The Sahara has been encroaching southward for centuries. I read from some scientist that volcanic eruptions have had little impact on GHG’s. The cause behind the accumulation of GHG is human It seems to me that there are many more questions that need to be answered before accusing humanity of ruining the cosmos. Human activity contributes to GHG production, but to say that it is the only factor or even the major factor is irresponsible and misleading. If the attitudes and practices of climate change advocates were analyzed it would show that the movement is a cult. The hysteria and panic behind the evangelical rhetoric of climate change advocates suggests a fear of being found out. The certainty of their claims, climate change scientists preach, may indicate closed minds rather than reality. It is stated that, peer reviews change theories into hard evidence:

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field… Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. … Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scientific journals, but does by no means prevent publication of all invalid research.[10]

The peer review process is important, and people place great confidence in it. It verifies the process of validation followed by a peer when testing a theory, and is appropriate concludes that the theory is based on hard evidence. Peer review is a valid process in every discipline and all sectors of research. Scientific theories are said to be based on hard evidence through the process of peer reviews. Accordingly, I suggest that there is more hard evidence for creation than evolution. Over centuries scholars and researchers have reached a high level of consensus regarding the evidences of creation, to attest that the theory of creation is based on hard evidence. Like in the field of science, peer review in the field of religion is restricted to its specific field. Evolutionary scientists may not agree with the creationist theory, but they have to accept that it is based on hard evidence, since it has undergone centuries of peer review. Evolutionary scientists say assert that they deal in hard evidence, and creationists rely on faith. Evolutionary scientists cannot accept peer reviews within their field and deny it for creationist in their field; that would be tantamount to saying that, what they say is true, because they say it is true.  Peer review is no more than having other scientists who think alike approve what they collectively believe. Unlike Mr. McDonald, I expect that belief has more to do with what evidence scientists find than that which is produced objectively.

Loeb contends. “One would have naively expected scientific activity to be open minded to critical questioning of its architectural design, but the reality is that conservatism prevails within the modern academic setting.”

In other words, the best possible source of fresh ideas — the youngsters whose brains are not yet fossilized by standard dogmas — are ostracized or bullied if they challenge the prevailing paradigms. And scientists wonder why they have so many problems that stubbornly remain so hard to solve.[11]

Based on hard evidence there was a tower of Babel. Based on biblical research the tower of Babel was the enterprise of people who believed they could do anything, their objective was to build a tower reaching to heaven. The attitude and self-importance of the people engineering the project was idolatry. People who take it upon themselves to improve nature, or interrupt natural processes are in the same class as the designers of the tower. Idolatry is not only bowing to manmade images, it is also self-importance or self-worship. Idolatry can also be the all-consuming investment in a cause. Some groups championing climate change have used deceitful practices and false information to support their cause, stating that the end justifies the means.

                         

Based on the many changes in science, and the acknowledgement of current scientists that present “truths” will change as new evidence comes into play, why should anyone believe the hype of human impact on GHG’s? Behind the hysteria promoting human causes of GHG’s, there may be the need to gain funding for programs in which the scientists are employed. Could it be that their self-interest is driving the cause, not the desire to improve the global climate? It is the flimflam and hysteria around the doom of the world due to CO₂ that keeps Greenpeace and other associations afloat. The evidence that human beings are the cause of climate change is not sound science.

The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory. It is therefore correct, indeed verging on compulsory in the scientific tradition, to be skeptical of those who express certainty that “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”.[12]

On “belief”, that which is disdained by disciples of science; I consider belief to be a fundamental constituent of human life. Without belief humanity would become animalistic and degenerate. I don’t just believe in everyday events like the sun coming up in the morning, or that spring follows winter; I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. I believe that Jesus walked this earth as the human representation of God. I believe all people have hope through the sacrificial death of Jesus. I also believe that Jesus said, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”[13] Jesus prayed to God, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”[14] The psalmist and other writers of scripture point to the universe as evidence of God. The collection of scriptures come to us from antiquity. They are not scientific texts, but they mention things, which at their writing, were unknown to people. “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.”[15] The author may have been schooled in the Greek classics, but the concept of atoms did not emerge in modern society until the sixteenth century, interesting.

I believe that death and decay came into the world because of human pride. The cycle of death and decay is as natural as life. It is idolatry, to presume that humans can stop the process of nature, and that we are somehow greater than the Creator. As much as some scientists think they are capable of reversing the natural trend toward decay, they are sadly mistaken. However, believing that the world follows its designed course, does not give people the right to produce things harmful to life on earth, or the environment. Humans are caretakers of the world and must behave responsibly. Special interest groups do not have the right to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Special interest groups use saleable causes to further their own interests. It’s time to put in place checks and balances to prevent special interest groups from pushing their ideals down everyone’s throat. It’s not enough for scientists to have peers vet their proposals; if their theories cannot stand scrutiny from other disciplines they should be discarded. The world and climate are multi-faceted, and no single branch of science should have the right to force its theories on others without serious vetting by all. I think that governments and society should all read Hans Christian Andersen’s, “The Emperor's New Clothes”.

---

[1] Science 'Trumped' by belief: Bob McDonald, CBC News Posted: Jan 20, 2017 3:40 PM ET

[2] Psychology Today, Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”, Satoshi Kanazawa

[3] Science is not based on absolutes–Richard Dawkins proves that, 2013/08/13 The Original Skeptical Raptor

[4] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Scientific Objectivity, First published Mon Aug 25, 2014

[5] Ibid

[6] Scientific American. The ideal of objectivity. By Janet D. Stemwedel on February 26, 2013

[7] https://www.rasch.org

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org

[9] Soft versus Hard Evidence; Appeal to Authority etc. John Denker

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review

[11] Science News, Replacing paradigms requires open minds, by Tom Siegfried

[12] Dr. Patrick Moore, (Founder of Greenpeace) 2015 Annual GWPF Lecture Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London 14 October 2015

[13] Joh 8:31, 32

[14] Joh 17:17 

[15] Heb 11:3