Ichthys Acronym Image

Home             Site Links

Science and the Bible III

Word RTF


Question #1: 

Hello Dr. Bob,

I have a question about the timing of the devil's desire to inhabit a physical body as his convincing reason for the other angels to join him in revolt against God since humans and animals were not created yet when their rebellion happened, therefore the object of their lusts is absent.

Pardon me if this seems inconsequential to you but this is confusing to me.

Thanks a lot for the putting ichthys in the web.


Response #1: 

Good to hear from you again.

While we aren't told much about the situation before Satan's fall, it does seem clear (as outlined in part 1 of the SR series) that the earth existed in a state of perfection at that time, and that there already was extant an extensive flora and fauna as well – this is represented by the fossil record. In my understanding of events, while there were no human beings (obviously) there were all manner of animals before the fall. Satan's revolt precipitated the withdrawal of the Father to the third heaven, and consequent to that the devil and his minions began the process of genetically manipulating the creatures of that time – from which it seems obvious to me that we owe the origin of the dinosaurs (variations on smaller creatures in the same way that even pre-industrial revolution mankind was able to manipulate various breeds of dogs, e.g., which all go back to one common strain/species). Satan did not create them; he and his merely altered them (along the lines of his Genesis chapter six interference with human beings).

As I say, this is covered in SR 1 as well in some of the various email response postings at Ichthys. Do feel free to write me back about any of this, however.

Satan's Fall from Grace

Satan's Revolt and the Tribulation to Come

Angelic Issues V: Michael, the Angel of the Lord, Christophany, demons, cherubs, and Satan's revolt.

Angelic Issues IV:  Satan's Revolt in the Plan of God.

Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #2: 

Hello Dr Luginbill. I hope you are doing well.

1) In Mathew 6:2 when Jesus said the hypocrites have their reward, what reward in particular was he talking about?

2) In Solomon's conclusion in Ecclesiastes 12:13, what exactly does he mean by the duty of men is to keep God's commandments?

3) What lead Satan to think that a Holy God could not replace the fallen Angels and judge sin?

Thanks as always

Response #2: 

Hello Friend,

Always good to hear from you. As to your questions . . .

1) The reward a hypocrite receives who prays for the sake of being seen or gives for the sake of being seen is being seen – that is to say, the "glory" he/she receives from other human beings; but such a person gets no credit from God because the motives were impure.

2) Whatever God tells us to do are "His commandments", that is, not just the 10 of Exodus/Deuteronomy nor the commandments in the Law – this is referring to the express Will of God. Now that we have the Holy Spirit (and now that the Law has been superseded: Heb.7:12), knowing what God's will is for us individually is a more particular thing, possible for the mature believer in Christ to discern through the Spirit and the application of the truth (e.g., Rom.12:1-2; Phil.1:9-10; Heb.5:14).

3) How any angelic creature who had stood in the presence of God Almighty could ever think of rebelling from Him, or want to, or in any way think that he might be successful is certainly staggering to contemplate. However we do know for certain that Satan did so, and that he was able to convince a third of angelic kind to join him in his revolt. This is a testimony to the corrupting nature of arrogance (pride, after all, was his downfall: Ezek28:17), and the ability of creatures with free will to blot out the truth so as to be able to completely ignore it through the process of the hardening of the heart (see the link).

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #3: 

Dear Bob, thank you for your email, yes winter is coming for sure and all my horses coats are all growing their winter coats and my pet sheep also looking twice the size re his winter coat too.

I was thinking about the Gap Theory and Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah and you wrote:

"Arrogant pride, attributed specifically to Satan's high esteem for his own appearance, is at the root of the thought pattern described in Isaiah's five "I wills" (Is.14:13-14; see above). Persistent and obsessive preoccupation with his own loveliness over time had a corrupting influence upon Satan's whole mental attitude, neutralizing, then effectively destroying his conscience, his character and his wholesome fear of God (cf. Eph.4:19; 1Tim.4:2). This arrogance led to a complete perversion of the devil's thought process, and these mental attitude sins blossomed into overt activity; specifically, they led to the canvassing of his fellow angels for support in rebelling against the Lord (i.e., "your extensive conspiring" and "the unrighteousness of your conspiring"). The judgments described here are largely yet future, but, since the devil's fate is certain (since it has been decreed by God), they can be described as already having taken place."

So you are saying some of these judgments had already taken place? and some are in the future. The regular church people think they are all reserved for the future. Also do you think it's possible that there was people on the earth before Genesis, would this idea account for the mysterious ancient monuments. I saw something about an ancient people who lived in Ukraine and dating their artwork 25000 years ago work. If Lucifer corrupted people living on earth wouldn't this account for Ezekiel 28? Then I think, well Adam was the first man, so maybe I am wrong.

No rush I know you are busy doing the work of our glorious God, as usual.

from Tasmania

Response #3: 

Good to hear from you – and before I forget to mention it, there are now audio files available for some of these postings (courtesy of Chris Bergquist and as read by "Ryan the Robot; see the link).

As to your question, both Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 contain some elements describing Satan's original position in the Eden of God which was indeed on this planet before the events that occasioned the situation found in Genesis 1:2 occurred (i.e., after the Genesis Gap; see the link); but both also contain descriptions of the devil's eventual end (which obviously hasn't yet occurred). It is typical of Old Testament prophecy to give a panoramic view of future events telescoped together (see the link: "Prophetic Foreshortening"), and this is the case in these two passages as well. After all, we know very well from the book of Job that the devil still attends concourses in heaven (chapters 1-2), and from the book of Revelation that he is still accusing believers "day and night" (Rev.12:10), and will not be thrown down to earth until the Tribulation's mid-point (Rev.12:9). Between Genesis 1:1, the creation of everything from nothing, and Genesis 1:2, the devil corrupted the world of that time and occasioned the departure of God to the third heaven (from the original paradise earth) and the judgment sometime thereafter upon the universe, blacking it out and filling it with the universal deep (the tehom). Genesis 1:2 commences the reestablishment of the world, the earth in particular, as a habitable place for the final seven thousand years of the conflict wherein God uses a lesser creature than the angels to refute all of Satan's lies and in the process restore to Himself twice what was lost – as is the divine pattern of grace. The idea one often hears being bruited about these days to the effect that there were creatures with free will on earth before the cataclysm is entirely wrong-headed and built upon no biblical evidence whatsoever; it seems to be a fascination with fossil evidence instead, and here there is no solid ground merely shifting sand. There may have been ape-like creatures living on earth pre-Genesis 1:2, but not with the image of God. Also, any archaeological "proof" to the contrary is based upon flawed theories (see the links: "Archaeology and Faith"; "Archaeological theories"). Only the angels and mankind have free will and self-determination in the plan of God, "the image of God", and mankind has only been here for 6,000 years.

Do feel free to write me back about any of the above. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are treated at the link in SR 1 section IV "Satan's Character, Sin and Fall".

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #4:

Hello Dr. Luginbill,

As I was reading Genesis chapter 1 I noticed something that I have been overlooking; I have read this chapter at least 50 times and never realized this:

I noticed that at the end of each activity it says "There was evening and there was morning, a one day beginning from the first day to the sixth day."

What escaped me was: On the seventh day, this phrase is not repeated, it only says that "by the seventh day completed His work...".

Comment: I know that this is a special day, the 7th day or the "Last Day" because it states: "Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made"

Seems to me that this 7th day parallels the Last Day, the Millennial reign of Christ, which we will enjoy with Him, ruling and reigning with Him on the earth.
Question: Am I correct in my assumptions or ...?

Secondly, I also noted that it says: "there was evening and there was morning, one day". The evening (darkness) is stated first which coincides with the darkness that the re-created earth in verse two became.
Question: Am I correct in my observation or ?

Question: In Genesis chapter 4, it says: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven."
Based on your study of the Genesis Gap: does this verse 4 refer to the re-created earth starting in Verse 2, or does this Verse 4 refer to the original creation of the heavens and earth in Verse 1?

This verse uses the word "day", I assume that it is referring to the re-created earth. This can be somewhat confusing to me, can you in-confuse me?

Question: Is there any significance to Abram "not cutting" the birds in half which is stated in Genesis 15:9.?

Looks like there is also some significance the other "three-year" old animals that he did cut it half.
Also, is there any great significance to "three year" old animals, in other words, why "three year old"; could it be symbolic of how long Christ served in His Ministry?

Hope these comments and question are not too trivial.

Thanks ever so much for you help in these.

Seems like a great number of people are fascinated with the upcoming Solar eclipse soon to take place.. Makes no sense to me .. but not interested in knowing God's Word though.

Blessings be upon you my friend,

Response #4:

What you are experiencing is indeed a very common thing for believers who are really seeking God through His truth, namely, the continuing illumination of all manner of truths coming both from reading and re-reading scripture and also from diligent Bible study.

As to your questions:

1) Absolutely yes! There are seven millennial days of human history all of which last 1,000 years, the Millennium being the last. The seven days wherein the Lord reconstructed / renewed the universe and the earth to make it habitable for human beings deliberately foreshadow and parallel these seven thousand "age days" which follow. God could have reconstructed the world in the blink of an eye of course; that is how He made it in the first place, perfectly, as recorded in Genesis 1:1. The six day process and the seventh day of rest are meant to teach us many things about human history and the conflict between Satan and the Lord against which our present human history is being played out. Here is a link to a excerpt file where this is treated: "The Seven Days of Human History".

2) That is also correct and an important point to notice because, clearly, God is light and therefore the darkness which had to be corrected had to have been the result of creature sin/rebellion. Though we are in a world of darkness now, the end of all things will be light, and in the eternal state there will be no more night (Rev.21:25; 22:5).

3) This verse – you mean Genesis 2:4 – is frequently misunderstood, mistranslated, misinterpreted, and misused. Here is the way I render it:

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth in their creation, throughout the entire period that the Lord God fashioned earth and heavens.
Genesis 2:4

The word "day" I have translated as "period" because this is a summary statement which includes everything that happened from original creation in Genesis 1:1 through the gap and to the end of the seven days of re-creation. Here is what I write about this verse in SR 2:

Coming as it does immediately after God's resting on the seventh day, verse four begins in the classic manner of an explanation with asyndeton (that is, with no intervening connectives like "and"). Theoretically, the verse could look backwards or forwards. The disjunctive opening of verse five eliminates the latter possibility (because an introductory explanation would not then be immediately followed by a rough break of the sort occurring in verse five). However, if we take verse four as a summary of everything written so far in the book, the sense will be confusing at best – unless we factor in that it includes both original creation and the seven days of re-creation. Failure to understand that both elements are included in the summary of verse four is at the heart of attempts to link the verse to what follows in an unnatural way, or even to split it in two in the manner of the NIV.

The vocabulary used in Genesis 2:4 to summarize creation and re-creation is both consistent and precise: we are told of the "creation" of heaven and earth, and the Lord God's "fashioning" of them. The word for creation is the Hebrew bar'ah (ברא), while to fashion or make is the Hebrew 'asah (עשה). Now bar'ah is most often used in scripture for miraculous, creative activities of the Lord (the word, incidentally, found in Genesis 1:1 for "created"), whereas 'asah is the most common Hebrew word for making and doing and has many subjects in scripture in addition to the Deity. The clue to why Moses, the writer of the Pentateuch, felt the need to employ both verbs here is to be found in the word "generations" (toledhoth, תולדות). This plural is normally used in the Old Testament to detail the ancestry or lineage of human families, and therefore necessarily includes the idea of development over a significant amount of time. Here, therefore, "generations" is clearly being used by way of analogy to sum up the "developments", that is, the different periods of history for the heavens and the earth, namely: 1) original creation; 2) judgment and Genesis Gap; 3) re-creation. So while it is clearly difficult to reconcile this verse with a seven-day original creation theory, by combining the verb of creation (ba'rah – Genesis 1:1: most suited for original creation), with the verb of manufacture ('asah – found throughout the seven days, e.g., Gen.1:7; 1:16; 1:25: more suited to reconstitution), and by setting both verbs in a context of lengthy, "generational" development, Genesis 2:4 makes perfect sense as a summing up of all that has gone before: the original creation of Genesis 1:1, the Genesis Gap, and the seven days of re-creation:

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth in their creation, throughout the entire period that the Lord God fashioned earth and heavens.
Genesis 2:4

Also important is the reversal of order between "the heavens and the earth" in the first part of the verse and "earth and heavens" without definite articles in the second half: during the reconstruction, which is what the second half of the verse summarizes, earth is mentioned first and "heavens" are the name given to the manufactured "expanse" or firmament which is not made until day two. Only by understanding Genesis 1:1 as original creation and what follows beginning with Genesis 1:2 as a process of reconstruction does Genesis 2:4 make sense.

4) Our Lord's ministry was actually three and a half years (see the chart). In the absence of any specific scriptural indication I would prefer to see the number as reflective of the Trinity. As to the birds, this is how they are handled in the later Law of Moses as well (cf. Lev.1:17). I would imagine that the reason has to do with the relative smallness of birds, whereas goats, sheep and cattle are large enough to be split in two and make an impression on the person making a covenant of this kind; the dual message being 1) this is what will happen to you if you break your end of the agreement (cf. Jer.34:18), and 2) this is analogous to what happened to Christ in order to ratify all agreements between God and man and provide reconciliation (cf. Heb.10:10; 10:20).

Yes, the band of greatest darkness passes through KY just about sixty miles from my university and happens on our first day of class. I'll be surprised if I have 50% attendance on Monday.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #5: 

Hello Dr. Luginbill,

I'd like to thank you again for your prayers. I can tell that I've been given perseverance and strength even in extremely difficult situations in life. And I know for absolute certainty that it's because of prayers.

The bible states that even things under the Earth will bow to the name of Jesus. What are the things under the earth. I've heard people say that under the earth refers to people who are in hades, or the dead who are buried under the earth literally. I've even heard someone say that there are intelligent creatures who actually dwell under the earth. What are those who are "under" the earth?

God Bless you and your ministry,

Response #5: 

You are most welcome, my friend. I would imagine that you are getting some prayer support from Ichthys readers too. How is the living situation coming? I keep you and your family, you mother in particular, in my prayers day by day.

There are no "intelligent creatures" dwelling below the earth. The only creatures below the earth at present are the fallen angels who are at the moment incarcerated in the Abyss, as well as all departed unbelievers who are in Torments.

In Philippians 2:10, Paul is referring to the time when everyone, believers and elect angels, fallen angels and unbelievers at the last judgment, will acknowledge the Lord (so "under" does mean incarcerated fallen angels and departed unbelievers in that passage). In eternity, there will only be two places of habitation for creatures who made choices of free will in this world: the new heavens and new earth or the lake of fire.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #6: 

The property that I'm renting out is still for sale by my landlord. I would guess that whoever purchases it would more than likely rent it out to me. And even if the new owner decided not to rent it out, I still would not say that it's the worst case scenario because I know that God seeks the highest good in each of His children, and whatever happens, regardless of how uncertain things may seem to me, I know I can rely on my heavenly Father. I am absolutely certain that He will honor all my prayers and the prayers from you and others on Ichthys. Thank you again!

God Bless,

Response #6: 

I'm very encouraged by your faith!

Keep fighting the good fight, my friend, and I promise to keep you in my prayers.

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #7: 

Dear Dr. Robert,

Good day!

I have read your Satanic Rebellion Part 1 & 2, and Im very thankful for a very a good biblical presentations and reflections on the subject of Creation and First Fall.

I just would like to share my thoughts on the subject of "Recreation" as it gives me confusions on your presentations. How come that Gen 1:1 heaven & earth already was created? and then God proceeds again in Genesis 1:2 to recreate heaven & earth again...I don't have any biblical or theology background nor any knowledge on Hebrew, Greek language interpretations but in my own little understanding in order to shed light on the "Recreation" confusions is to parallel our understanding of Gen 1:1 to Gospel of John 1:1..In which stated "In the beginning was the Word".

In my humble understanding Gen1:1 only existed in the "Thought of God". God is the ALPHA...He thought on creating the Heavens & the Earth first and hovering the waters from the earth meaning His Spirit seeing all that will happens/unfolding to the earth. He already knows what will happen after the creation or the whole story of mankind in the end..He is also the OMEGA..and then proceeded with its spiritual & material creation..Just like John 1:1 from the beginning... Jesus was not yet in the flesh but a Word first.

Hope you appreciate my thoughts. But my main purpose for this email is to further inquire on the Part 1, which is the First Fall.

1. If Lucifer is the only one whom God has found iniquities, how come 1/3 of the angels join with him..
2. I just cant fully accept the utterance of "Non Serviam" without the whole drama which led Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels.
3. Also, I would like to ask if when is the First Fall committed? I have an inclination on the First Day, because it mentioned that Light was separated from the Darkness...I believe that after the separations God cast out Lucifer into the Garden of Eden thereafter....

Just my thoughts. Hope and pray that God will give you grace time to answer my queries.

God Bless!

Response #7: 

Good to make your acquaintance. Our friend, pastor-teacher Curtis Omo from Bible Academy, forwarded this message to me.

Thank you for your kind words about this ministry.

In terms of your question, I think it is answered in detail in the second part of the SR series, "The Genesis Gap". Simply put, verse one of the Bible speaks of original creation (just as the first verses of the gospel of John, to which you refer, speak of the situation before creation). However, already in the next verse, Genesis 1:2, we find an earth which is now destroyed – by divine judgment on account of Satan's revolt. So verse one and verse two are not talking about the same thing at all. Everything God creates is created perfect, in light and not darkness. But in Genesis 1:2 we find darkness not light. Why? Because of the judgment. So in order to create mankind – created as God's rebuke to Satan and His replacement for him – the universe had to be repaired and the earth in particular restored to habitable conditions. For man would be a physical creature as well as a spiritual one.

In terms of Satan's revolt, that is spelled out in part one of the SR series, and the time of the revolt must have taken place in the no doubt very long time period between original creation (which is followed by judgment) and the re-establishment of the world for the creation of mankind. Because, as you rightly intuit, there is not enough time in the six days of re-creation for the devil to gain the following of one third of all the angels. First there was God (Jn.1:1ff); then there was original creation (Gen.1:1); then there was an indeterminate period wherein the angels served God; then there was the satanic conspiracy culminating in revolt (covered in Isaiah chapter fourteen and Ezekiel chapter twenty-eight); then there was the judgment on the universe (whose after effects are seen in Genesis 1:2); then there was the re-creation of the six days (in the rest of Genesis chapter one following Gen.1:2). That is the only reconstructed chronology which fits the biblical facts – and it fits then perfectly. However, seeing Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 as the same thing is impossible, because God created the world in perfection not desolation resulting from destruction (cf. Is.45:18); and of course there is no time for the revolt of Satan if the six days were original, and no reason for the creation of mankind either (part 3 of the SR series deals with that). And also, of course, God creates the earth in verse one, but in verse two, the earth is already there.

So keep reading, my friend! The answers are all in there. You might also want to consult the following links:

The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers V

The Grammar behind the Genesis Gap

The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers

The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers II

The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers III

The Genesis Gap: Questions and Answers IV

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #8: 

Dear Dr. Robert,

Good day!

I appreciate your taking time to answer my queries..

You're right in Gen1:1 God already made heaven and earth its not a thought as I understand it before...Although from Gen1:2, I looked again the passages the wordings are " the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. I've just couldn't grasp fully the idea that when you read without form & void it will mean the created earth was destroyed already...I thought it voids & without form because day4 & day5 is the time God will fills the earth as seen in the passage on the book of Job...when God set the foundations of the earth...I think there is judgement in Gen1:2 because it's the time when Lucifer & third of the angels rebel...That's why God separated the light from darkness. I've read other article stating that angels were on probationary period because they are created with free will and God wanted to test the fidelity of the angels..God knew all along that because of freewill iniquities will be committed. Thats why the word "and darkness was on the face of the deep" means hell follows. God omniscient knew it, and waited for it to happens first so that when He created man with freewill also..Satan will be there to test now the fidelity of created Man.

Maybe my mind perspective is leaning on other possibilities. Because in my mind the ultimate purpose of God creating the heaven & earth, angels & all other created things is to serve & accomplished his ultimate goal that is in the appointed time He will open His Eternal Kingdom and welcomes all worthy man/Christians capable/battle-tested of giving Him "perfect worship&adoration just like the angels" and capable of "giving perfect/unconditional love" just like His Son Jesus.. But the perfection of man's adoration & love requires a testing and must be perfected here on earth..As it is written nothing defiles can enter the Kingdom of God.

I will do further reading on your e-mailed links, my goal is to know the causes & circumstances of Lucifer resentment to God that leads to his anger & hatred to God & mankind. Im looking at the frustrations of Lucifer because all along he thought God will make him the leader of the angels, but unfortunately it was given to St. Michael, next he thought he was God most beautiful creations it came out that God has in mind creating a human being in His own image & likeness..Also, in his perfect wisdom it never comes to his bright mind that God Almighty was a Trinity....and plan to send His begotten son in the likeness of the lower being called man...which all knees must bend in heavens & on earth..

Hope & pray your articles will leads me in that understanding.

Again, thank you very much & God bless!


Response #8: 

It's my pleasure, my friend. Thank you for your thoughtful observations.

The traditional translations of Genesis 1:2 are often be very misleading. They are usually attempts to obscure the fact that the earth is in a ruined state in that verse – something which makes no sense until one understands that this is the post-judgment earth we are talking about. So "without form and void" or similar makes it sound as if things we just not completed yet – as if somehow God has started His work but hadn't gotten around to finishing yet. But that is not at all what the actual Hebrew words tohu waw bhohu mean, as is very obvious when one looks at how this phrase is used elsewhere in the Old Testament. I translate "ruined and despoiled", making it clear that God is not responsible for the darkness and devastation of His originally perfect creation (in verse one). Here is a link to where this is covered in detail: "The Description of Earth in Genesis 1:2".

Feel free to write me any time!

Your in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #9: 

Good day to Dr. Bob,

Thanks for your answer about Eve temptation, I appreciate and tell you honestly I agree with your explanation 100 percent. It is clearly man's behavior who is deeply & madly in love with a woman to follow her cause no matter what even in hell probably..

Also, about the Genesis Gap & Recreation Theory I reread it again following your link, and it's now clear to me that your absolutely correct.
To tell you honestly, I'm studying this prayerfully and I really don't know what urges me.

I hope you don't mind sharing my prayerful thoughts after reading again the part of your article Gen 1:1 & Gen1:2...Clearly in the beginning God created the heavens & the earth in good form. I support your theory of the earth was became ruined, despoiled, uninhabitable and so was clearly destroyed if not completely...Logically God will not be the one who had done this. So you're theory of Satan's Revolt & God's Judgement fits perfectly, making Gen1:2 a separate event...However if we concentrate on this two verses alone. We can logically conclude that in this particular time I would say the angels were already created...and not in the in the period of Recreation starting from Gen1:3 and the following. So angels are created separate from the Day 1 & Day 6.

To visualize or explains what happens in Gen 1:2 about God's Judgement & Satans Revolt. We must believe that the Fall of Lucifer & the Third Angel happens in this time. Since their numbers constitute many, clearly they don't want to leave heaven so there's a battle & intense fight between them...After they cast out forcefully from heaven & thrown into the earth. I suppose they all vented their anger on God's created earth ruining it & destroying it good features to make it inhabitable to express their anger and hinders the plan of God which is next to Create Man to share his benefits and glory.

Although, in your succeeding theory on the coup d' etat, Satan's conspiracy to overthrow God, and you also mentioned the desire of the third angels to experience sensual or experience possessing man & animals in their flesh...For me this is quite illogical because Satan's revolt happens in Gen1:2, Recreation does not even happen yet this angels have no knowledge yet about that creations. The one thing that has only been revealed to them in Gen 1:2, I supposed after God found iniquities with Lucifer, because of the third of angels believing Lucifer in his evil trading that if God will elect him as Prince of the Heavenly Host, he will put them in position of authority. that is Lucifer promise and the third of the angels was infected by Lucifer's Pride & Ambitions..

You see when God announce to summons all the angels in Gen 1:2 to reveal His Plan of Creation...The first thing He did is to announce to all that He is choosing St. Michael the Archangel as their Prince...To Lucifer's astonishment as well to the rest of the third angel. And to their surprise the Almighty God is a Trinity, and plan to send his begotten son in the form of the flesh on which they have to adore & worship Lucifer's said what.??..what in the hell you want us to bend our knees on a lower being...no way after you deprive me of my ambitions after you ruin my pride of wanting to be the leader of the Heavenly Host....shame on you "I WILL NOT SERVE"...and so the story continues.

Thanks a lot for helping me come up with this prayerful thoughts.

God bless!

Hope reading the rest of your articles will lead me more to God's mysteries of creation.


Response #9: 

Thanks for your good words, my friend.

As to the timing of these things, there is evidence in scripture that the earth was the original seat of the Lord and that earth was the original Eden. Satan's revolt (following Gen.1:1 but long before Gen.1:2) resulted in the Lord moving headquarters to the third heaven, while Satan and his forces reveled in their "conquest" of the earth – but only for some finite period of time (also unknown but probably long – long enough to explain the fossil record). After Satan had sufficiently proved his depravity and unfitness for ruling the universe, God eventually judged the universe as a result and blacked it out, filling it with the universal deep (angels, while powerful, can't darken a universe filled with light as the original one must have been); this judgment was designed to prevent further manipulation of the world by the devil and his followers. But instead of sending Satan and company to hell at that point, in an incredible act of mercy the Lord restored the universe from its devastated state (which is seen in Gen.1:2) through the seven days of re-creation (Gen.1:3ff.), and created a new species which, like the angels, also had the image and likeness of God. This new species, mankind, was clearly meant as a replacement for Satan and his rebels – but also as an olive branch: once they saw the devastation, the re-creation, and the reality of imminent replacement, the proper course would have been to throw themselves on the Lord's mercy. They did not, of course, and the rest is history – human history, the seven thousand years wherein the devil is completely defeated, refuted and replaced; this is followed by eternity and the new heavens and the new earth.

All these things are written up in the SR series, but do please let me know if there is anything you are wondering about in particular and I can point you to pertinent links.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #10: 

Good day Dr. Bob,

Hope I can finish reading some of your voluminous work, It's a tremendous piece of work, I scanned the eschatological articles I'm interested to read but I cant comprehend yet a good picture how to grasp the big story.

About your reply...I thought angel being pure intellectual creature see clearly the consequences of their actions, so they are incapable of repentance & much yet seeking the Lord's mercy. Satan & the third of angel does not "conquest" rather "cast" down the earth. You're correct Satan & his followers is not cast down directly to hell yet but in some biblical passages it seems to appear Satan & demons were already there tormenting humans, I think, God in His Divine plan will use them for man's perfection & tribulation. God seeing the hatred of Satan against His plan of creating man in His own image & likeness. That's the way I see those things unfold upon reflections.

You had mentioned moving God headquarters to third heaven. Is this in the NT St. Paul saying he got caught in the third heaven. But the abode of God is in the highest heavens & earth is just His footstool ..As reference to "The Highest Heavens cannot contain God whom you carried in your womb".

My follow-up question is in First Temptation you mentioned they devise their attack and they triumph Eve first then Adam. But in the New Testament they fail miserably how come they pursue tempting Jesus and not Mary. I read an article that said Satan is not 100% sure Jesus is God, is this biblically correct? He is just an extraordinary pious man. And Satan will never tempt or go nearer Mary because he terribly fear God's punishment in Gen 3:15.

Would you mind sharing your expertise to shed light on this matter.

Thanks again for your fast reply.

God bless.


Response #10: 

These things do take time to read and digest – they took me a long time to produce!

As to the nature of angels, please see BB 2A Angelology (at the link). Angels are different from human beings in many ways, but not in the most important way, that is, possessing the image and likeness of God: free will. Most human beings will never believe in Christ. Very many are hard as a rock in their heart, like the rocky soil which refuses to let the seed of the Word in as found in the parable of the Sower. And to their dying day, regardless of what they hear or see or experience, they will not even give the gospel a hearing – but that does not mean they cannot. It only means that they WILL not. Their failure to respond does not mean or prove or indicate that they did not have free will and the ability as well as the opportunity to respond to the Lord. And any plea at the last judgment such as "it's not my fault because YOU made me this way!" will be shown to be blasphemously wrong (Is.29:16; 45:9; Jer.18:4-6; Rom.9:20). They had free will. They chose. The same exact thing is true of the angels.

Now while it is true that once – after eons of seeing God face to face – the angels have chosen sides, there is every indication that none of them has ever changed sides again, that (apparent) fact does not mean that they – meaning in particular Satan and his followers – did not have the opportunity and the ABILITY to do so. Of course they did/do – they have free will. They will not do it – just like hardened unbelievers for the most part will not do it. But some of us human beings do. Some turn from unbelief to faith, and some, like the prodigal son, come back from straying to the faith. THAT is the lesson to angels, elect and fallen, which we human beings provide, namely, that some creatures given free will WILL indeed respond to God's grace and come back to Him (both for salvation and restoration) – and even more importantly that all slander which suggests that God will not forgive or be merciful if any such should wish to return to Him is a damnable lie: He gave up His one and only dear Son to die in the darkness for the sins of the world that we might have the opportunity to be saved, and that Gift in its smallest part is greater than all human and angelic experience and speculation to an infinite degree.

There are three heavens (see the link). The casting down to earth of the devil does not happen until the Tribulation's midpoint (Rev.12:9); at present the devil does appear before the Lord at appointed times to slander believers (Job chapters 1-2; Rev.12:10). When the devil and his forces rebelled, they defiled by their sin the original world/earth. That is why God departed to the third heaven – a place technically outside of "this kosmos/world" (Heb.9:11; cf. Jn.18:36), that is, to preserve His holiness . . . until such time as He would, through His perfect plan (in the creation and salvation of mankind) defeat and refute the evil one, restoring things to perfection in a way that brings Him glory forever. Here is a link on the "geography of the cosmos" from the biblical point of view.

On your final question, I don't agree with the premise. The devil and his forces have always had "tactical victories" but "strategic defeats". That is to say, they are continually opposing God, the plan of God, and the people of God, and they do succeed, for example, in making our lives miserable at times – but not in making us who are truly blessed miserable in fact because we are blessed beyond understanding in our beloved Jesus Christ! So they did cause Job great pain and trouble, for example, but in the end they were defeated and Job's final state was greater than his last state. As to the odd speculation you have read, well, one can find all manner of silly things out there in cyberspace. But clearly, the devil has been in the presence of God from the beginning, and he certainly knows that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the incarnate second person of the Trinity – better than even most Christians. The problem for the devil and his minions is not knowledge; the problem is choice: they are rebels and their denial of the truth has hardened their hearts to point where they allow no light in, just as in the case of many human unbelievers.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #11: 

"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
Exodus 20:11

Young Earth Creationists have stated that because this verse says that God created "everything that is in it" in six days, that therefore nothing existed prior to the first day of creation. How do you interpret this important verse?

Response #11: 

It says "made" ('asah) not "created" (bara'). In six days everything was re-constructed (Gen.1:2ff.). But everything had originally already been created in a moment of time (Gen.1:1).

In Genesis 1:2 the earth is described as being in existence; that means that Genesis 1:1 has to be original creation; now we are left to understand a damaged and darkened earth in Genesis 1:2. Impossible without the rebellion of Satan, the judgment of God, and the Genesis gap, pace YECs.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #12: 

Hi Dr, I hope all is well with you and your family. This week emails are interesting and one word came to mind after reading about dinosaurs which I have read already in some of your previous postings including their potential origin in SR series.

Beauty. The Lord's creation is beautiful. Have you ever looked at prehistoric animals or hominids, compare to our current life form? You might have some creatures that look strange but overall all life form the Lord created during his recreation of earth in Genesis is beautiful.

Dinosaurs to me all look the same and it seems the species are trying to compensate for something. They are all rather large and and most have similar features such as gigantic teeth, etc.

I know it is not an important point but I believe somewhat critical to view the complexity of what our Lord creates and its beauty and all other counterfeits.

The most beautiful thing is a born again human. Satan can't top that

Good work. In Christ Jesus our Lord

Response #12: 

Very good observations, my friend! I'll post this the next time out on this topic (that will be quite a while now at this point, however).

In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,

Bob L.

Question #13: 

Ok I'm sorry. I want to ask a few more things before I leave. I know your a very busy and all but your answers are so very helpful to me. This should be it for me after this as I have nothing else to ask. Do you think it was possible dinosaurs were on the ark? I know you have links on this but what stumps me is that if dinosaurs were genetic mutations "prior" to the gap and no longer existed after the gap or re creation of the earth took place, how is it we find fossils to begin with? This might be a stupid question, so pardon me for that, and I am aware that you were just speculating, and I don't disagree per say its just that I'm a bit confused. Since after its original destruction the earth was nothing but water and that land had to be recreated, how would fossils be found when the original Eden was destroyed and land didn't exist again until God declared it in the 7 days of creation? Again, pardon if it's a dumb question as I'm probably just not seeing something.

Some tribal people across the world claim that some dinosaurs may still be alive. I don't agree or disagree per say and am well aware of the many hoaxes and or misidentifications out there. But there are quite a few number of reported sightings some very convincing. Cryptids like mokele mbembe and kongamato are the most popular out of the few. Where would you settle your opinion on this matter? Like, what if somebody did actually discover a living dinosaur?
Finally, I'm just curious, but have you heard of the short documentary entitled "In Search of the Real Mt. Sinai"? If so, what did you think of it.

I appreciate your time and patience. In Christ

Response #13: 

No need to apologize, my friend. Feel free to write me any time. To take your questions in reverse order:

3) I've not seen the documentary; given what I know of "the search for" genre of literature and media, I would be reluctant to believe anything I heard from such a source.

2) If creatures some want to call dinosaurs do actually exist, whatever it is that "still exists" I would not want to call a "dinosaur", because by that name we mean extinct creatures that existed many eons ago, before the Genesis gap, in biblical terms.

1) Dinosaurs along with all other flora and fauna were destroyed when the original universe was judged on account of Satan's revolt. It was plunged into darkness and submerged in the cosmic deep. However, the physical earth was not annihilated and so did not need to be created anew on day one of the seven days; the earth had already been created, along with the heavens, in verse one of Genesis chapter one. What happens on day one of the seven days is a RE-creation, and the distinction is important. God did not create the earth anew on day one – at Genesis 1:2 it is in existence, but suffering from the after-effects of judgment; and God deliberately did not do so, because of His desire to symbolize His bringing of things back from destruction – symbolic of His bringing us back from condemnation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Just as we are spiritually "new" but not physically remade (i.e., we still have the physical imperfections and characteristics we had before our spiritual "new birth"), so the earth was reborn from devastation, but it was still the same earth – and so would still have the same essential physical make up, with fossilized remains preserved from that earlier time. In short, the Genesis gap actually explains the fossil record; all other interpretations fall short in this regard. That is not why I am a believer in the Genesis gap, however (it's just an added benefit of the truth as the truth often provides added benefits); I believe in the Genesis gap because it is clear taught in the first two verses of the Bible – as well as elsewhere.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #14:

Every once in a while when I encounter a form of art or a creation I particularly enjoy, I start to idolize the creator of that piece. I wonder, "wow, just what goodness and wisdom is in him for creating this..."

But shouldn't this be the same for the cosmos we live in? Shouldn't our love and appreciation of the cosmos consequently result in a greater love and appreciation of the creator of it?

Response #14:

An excellent point – the greatness and goodness of God shouts from the heavens, but most of sinful humanity has hardened their hearts and blinded their eyes and shut their ears to that glorious cry.

Question #15: 

Hi Bob,

A common, extremely anti-scientific notion by atheists is this:

We know that inorganic matter can form crystals, which are highly organized, without an intelligence behind it. So why can’t the same be true for life?

However, the atheist is ignorant of how the second law of thermodynamics works. Crystals form because the formation of crystals releases heat, and when the temperature is low enough the release of heat increases the entropy more than if the crystals were not to form. This is why there exists a point called “freezing point” for water. It is the temperature where the release of heat from ice crystals increases the entropy more than the surrounding temperature.

On the other hand, having amino acids spontaneously come together into D.N.A. or R.N.A. does not release energy at any temperature, and so consequently can never, ever happen. It cannot happen in a googolplex of years, and is the simplest reason why abiogenesis is pseudoscience. The only way the atheist can get what he wants is if new physics emerges showing that amino acids coming together into D.N.A. releases heat.


Response #15: 

I've always felt that the law of entropy guaranteed that evolution was impossible – as considered from science's own canons.

In Jesus our dear Lord,

Bob L.

Question #16: 

You are correct that the second law makes evolution impossible…unless the evolutionist can prove that evolving releases heat (and it does not: evolution, if it were real, would be an endothermic process, not an exothermic).

Most evolutionists ignore abiogenesis and assume that if you give them a single cell and billions of years you can get a human being or some other rational, higher-order form a life. So let’s grant them that: you have a single cellular organism that has asexually reproduced to cover the entire Earth. Let’s even grant them that these cells can become specialized and form together to form “proto-organs.” But evolution from these cells into a human being, even by natural selection, is still impossible. However, to explain why requires some mathematical physics.

A macrostate is the end result. If you have a collection of cells, a macrostate would be those collection of cells forming together to form a human being. A smaller macrostate would be those collection of cells forming together to form an organ such as a heart or a liver.

The set of microstates of a macrostate is is the set of all combinations that result in that specific macrostate. So the microstates of a human being are all the possible ways those cells could combine together to form a human being.

The entropy of a macrostate, then, is the natural logarithm of the number of microstates. (Sorry, there’s math!) The entropy of a very multicellular organism such as a human being is enormous. But imagine if you were to take apart each skin cell, each nerve cell, each blood cell of a human being, and put them in a big box. How many combinations could result in the macrostate of an agglomeration of cells? The entropy of the macrostate of an agglomeration of cells is much, much, much greater than the entropy of a human being. So to go from a big pile of cells to a human being requires an enormous decrease in entropy.

The second law of thermodynamics states that you can have such a massive decrease in entropy… but only if the amount of heat released by the process balances out the decrease in entropy. And if the process requires both heat and a reduction in entropy, then the process is impossible.

So life is impossible by natural laws. Only something outside natural laws could create life. Atheism is true only if the universe is irrational and chaotic. Atheism makes sense in Homer’s Greece where the gods sprang forth from “chaos” and thus there are no natural laws that apply regularly. But it does not make sense in the normal world.

Response #16: 

Thanks.  Some important links:

Science and the Bible II

Science and the Bible

More science and the Bible

The problem of science and the Bible

Charles Hodge and Charles Darwin

Is the earth ever described as round in the Bible?

The origin of the four seasons

The shape of the universe according to the Bible

Question #17: 

A thought occurred to me as I've been now listening to Curt's lesson on creation. God says "it was good" after completing subsequent stages of the creation. Since He is omniscient and knows what would happen before it happens, I always found these proclamations hard to understand. God knows what He is about to create and knows that it will be good - so why does He say it? I thought that a way to explain it might be by bringing restoration into equation here. Since God's original creation was good and Satanic Rebellion incurred a judgment which plunged the world into darkness, it seems that it makes sense for God to say "and He saw that it was good", since things were not good before this restoration has begun. We could almost say "and He saw that it was good (again)". What do you think?

Response #17: 

Excellent point! That goes hand in hand with the truth that darkness, which is where the restoration begins, is by definition "not good" . . . because God is Light. An excellent further support for the Genesis gap and the Lord's restoration of life in the six days following judgment on evil rather than the six days representing original creation.

Question #18: 

Here are some more biblical questions:

1. In Joshua 5:11-13, the manna stopped flowing after the Passover prior to them overtaking Jericho. Is there a significance on why the manna stopped after the Passover. I knew they ate of the land, is that the reason why. They no longer needed God's provision and how does it correlate with the Passover, in terms of symbolism?

2. When the children of Israel shouted and the wall fell down in Jericho, i know scripture doesn't state what they shouted but can you ascertain what it could be. It could be the shema (Deut 6:4) " Hear O Israel. The Lord is our God, the Lord is one.

Thank you.

In Christ Jesus our Lord

Response #18: 

On Joshua 5:11-13, there are times for the overtly miraculous, and there are times for faith. In the early days of the Church, there was a time for spectacular and portentous miracles, but now is the time for faith. The children of Israel could never have survived in the desert without the overt supernatural provision of the Lord, and He gave them food and drink and other things during that time in an openly miraculous way (manna, water from the Rock, clothing never wearing out, etc.), not to mention the miracles of the exodus and at the Red Sea, His appearances at Mt. Sinai and pillar of fire and smoke over the tabernacle, etc. I would note, however, that that generation for all the wonders they saw never trusted Him completely and were quick to let these things slip from their hearts. The presence or absence of miracles and the like is not the key factor; faith is the key factor. The Lord also gave the generation entering the land miracles (as in stopping the flow of the Jordan, the walls falling at Jericho and in their miraculous victories over their enemies). They seem to have behaved marginally better than their forefathers but were still not without fault (Baal of Peor, Achan, the Gibeonites, etc.). But, yes, once they were able to survive and thrive without the miraculous provision of food and water et al., it was time for a change . . . to a regime of faith. So in my view the Passover is not the event that brings the change but tells us the precise time of the year when this happened. Symbolically, entering into the land (symbolic of our eternal inheritance) follows directly after faith in Christ (which Passover symbolizes, eating the lamb representing faith in Him).

As to what was shouted, there is no way to know since scripture does not say. All scripture says is that they were to shout (ru'ah can be "raise a battle cry" but it is generic), and in my view this shout probably did not consist of words at all. The point being that God had all this in hand and the victory wasn't dependent on a prayer or a form of a prayer – it was a total grace gift.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #19: 

"Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, 'Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!' So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plow points, mattocks, axes and sickles sharpened. The price was two-thirds of a shekel for sharpening plow points and mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening forks and axes and for repointing goads"
1 Samuel 13:19-21

1. Why did the Philistines consent to arming their enemies?

2. How expensive was the price given?

Response #19: 

We are talking about iron implements here. The price charged by the Philistine blacksmiths was exorbitant. A "pim" or two thirds of a shekel, is something around 100 grams which is somewhere around $100.00 today; since silver is historically depressed and had a greater relative value in antiquity we should at least double or triple this approximate figure (cf. Driver Samuel, 105: "the price stated seems incredibly high"). Now anyone who has been a boy scout or has any experience in the woods will understand that sharpening a steel ax (not to say an iron one) doesn't require any great skill or technological devices. That can be done with a whet stone (hard to believe that a whole nation which lived as farmers and shepherds didn't know something about rocks) or by another piece of steel (iron). So why in the world would a cash poor Hebrew farmer make a long journey to the Philistines to pay a goodly portion of his annual income to do something he could do easily enough himself? You would think all this would cause translators/translations to think twice about this interpretation. Sadly not, it appears (from a perusal of the major versions finds them all similar). Additionally, the verses which set up verse twenty one say that the Philistine reasoning is to keep the Hebrews from making swords/spears. Not even being able to get them sharpened without breaking the bank would seem to be major motivation for some enterprising person to import the technology or at least find another way to import the product. Obviously there is a problem here (with the traditional translations). The Hebrew verb translated universally as "sharpen" in verse twenty is latash, and here is its first use in scripture:

Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger (lotesh) of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.
Genesis 4:22 ESV

The verb means "to forge", and of course the technology required to produce iron was more sophisticated than that necessary for bronze (super-heating the ovens far past the temperature that more common pottery kilns could produce, among other things). The time referred to in our passage is the early iron age of the Mediterranean littoral (ca. 1000 B.C.), and it is understandable that the Philistines, sea people that they were, had picked this technology up from others. Iron weapons gave their possessors a huge advantage (the Dorians were thought by earlier scholars to owe their success in overthrowing the Mycenaean civilization in part to this, and I still am not willing to toss this interpretation out).

Whenever a civilization develops superior weapons, they face a dilemma. Obviously, the greater the infrastructure to produce them, the more potentially powerful your people becomes; but since there is a limit to how much of the stuff you yourselves can profitably use, what to do with the surplus? Krupp sold cannons to almost all comers – even likely potential enemies of Germany – for just this reason (or at least that was the rationale that got them export licenses from a skeptical government). And we see the same sort of dilemma today. This is where the ploy of "no dual use" comes in. It is perhaps a fiction that one can sell sophisticated materials to adversaries and not be bitten in the behind by them later – as in Boeing selling transport aircraft to Iran for "civilian use" (which are now carrying troops and military supplies to Assad), but in the case of the Philistines they seem to have hit a good balance, at least temporarily. It was decided only to sell agricultural implements and not weapons of war. This had two advantages: 1) by exporting iron implements they had more smithies available for when that might be needed (and this had a prosperity overflow no doubt to everyone else); 2) they satisfied the Hebrews demand for these implements at a reasonable enough price (see next para.) that they undercut any incipient blacksmith operations in Israel (where novice startups would certainly have to charge much more before their skill developed, before they had a good supply of ore, and before they had the volume to compete).

So we are talking here about the Hebrews buying iron implements, not sharpening them. After all, why should it cost so much more to sharpen a plowshare than an ax? But the concave part of the plowshare (it was only the tip of the wooden plow that was metal in antiquity, not the whole device) is no doubt more difficult to forge than a simple, flat blade. Axes and iron implements were expensive in the ancient world generally (cf. Elijah making the ax head float, important because it was an enormous loss even all those years later: 2Ki.6:5). These implements are "pricey" in our context, but within range, and just enough so as to make competition unlikely.

I think part of the reluctance to see this all for what it is has to do with the phrasing "went down each man to forge his plowshare . . ."; I would translate "to have his plowshare forged". This is really quite understandable. In these early days it's not as if your average smithy would have inventory lying about. Everything was "made to order".

There are other textual and vocabulary issues in this passage but I hope this helps give you the general idea of what was really going on.

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #20: 

Hi Bob,

I am taking down my blog because the title, "God's Philosopher," casts way too positive of a light on philosophy. The original idea was that it would be a blog that focused on natural revelation and reason, and I figured that "philosophy" was the field that was closest to that, but I was incredibly mistaken. The field that is closest to that is science.

Have you ever noticed that whenever a field in philosophy starts acquiring actual knowledge, it stops becoming philosophy and starts becoming an actual field of study? When Pythagoras lived, mathematics was philosophy. Pythagoras went nowhere and even set back progress by denying the existence of irrational numbers. It wasn't until Euclid published The Elements that mathematics became an actual field of study, but then it stopped being philosophy. Similarly, when the Stoics lived psychology was philosophy, but the Stoics went nowhere with it and even set it back by not offering specific therapy sessions or investigating which therapeutic approaches worked and which ones didn't. It wasn't until the mid-20th century when psychologists developed cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychiatrists drug-based treatment that Stoic therapy moved out of philosophy and into the realm of science.

So I am going to formulate the following law, that is not unlike the well-known "Peter principle" in management: once any area of philosophy starts acquiring truth, it stops being philosophy, so therefore the only way for an area of study to remain being philosophy is if it either has no truth whatsoever or such a minuscule amount of truth so as to remain unnoticed. Therefore philosophy is worthless.

Here is another fair question: has science gone off the rails? In other words, have scientists stopped investigating nature and started using it to espouse some weird religion?

The answer is yes. This is probably obvious to you (and it was also to me), but it became even more obvious to me when I started looking at how modern scientific methodology works. Here is an example regarding the analysis of studies demonstrating the effectiveness of the Ketogenic Diet in controlling epilepsy:

"One reason [older studies of the Ketogenic diet are hard to compare with newer ones] is that these older trials suffered from selection bias, as they excluded patients who were unable to start or maintain the diet and thereby selected from patients who would generate better results." ~ Wikipedia

Suppose therapy A is extremely effective but difficult to maintain, while therapy B is very easy to maintain but only mildly effective. If drop outs are included in the overall study, it may look like therapy B is more effective than therapy A, when in reality therapy A is more effective. This is an enormous hole in the design of experiments, and yet the modern scientific community is more interested in keeping things the same than addressing this problem. For years we have told people to eat grains, carbs and starches by means of the abomination that is the food pyramid, but in reality those three "staples" are probably the worst possible things you could feed your brain.

Response #20: 

Thanks for this. How about margarine instead of butter as dogma – then it turns out fifty years later that hydrogenated oils are a hundred times worse for your circulatory system than saturated fats! I've long taken all these pronouncements with a grain of salt – literally. A measure of common sense would seem to be superior to all such "findings".

Probably the thing that bugs me about all this sort of thing is how when the "findings" are released they are immediately dogma, then, when found to be wrong, science and the media go through an Orwellian shredding of the old as fast as they deify the new. If only science were acknowledged as an ever-changing search for the facts which will never get to full knowledge, that trace of humility would do everyone good.

Sorry about the blog, but I see your point. I do think you have a lot to say, and you're getting more refined about what and how day by day – so this is part of a process. I'm looking forward to the website.

Keep fighting the good fight my friend!

Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,

Bob L.

Question #21: 

Hi Bob,

Consequentialism is the belief that the morality of any action depends on the end result. The Truman Administration's decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an excellent example of consequentialist reasoning in action (the killing of 200,000 or so innocents would prevent the killing of millions of soldiers, so therefore it is morally justified). It also gives a tiny glimpse of how the world would look like if everyone were a consequentialist. Don't let anyone tell you that philosophy is unimportant again.

Traditionally, most philosophers have seen the justice of Jesus Christ's substitutionary death as wonderful and good, but considered the problem of evil to be serious and hard to answer. That's because most philosophers were not consequentialists, it being a very modern theory after all.

However, if consequentialism is true, the exact reverse happens: the problem of evil becomes extremely easy and trivial to answer (God could just prove that the suffering in the world results in a greater good, and it would immediately become justified like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are [I am using Consequentialist logic here]), but the justice of the atonement of Jesus Christ comes into question. If consequentialism is true, then the debt to God cannot be satisfied unless the consequences of the sins are erased also. A consequentialist Christian, if such a being could even exist, would say that his sins are not forgiven until the New Jerusalem arrives and all the (evil) consequences of sins are done away with, which contradicts the fundamental doctrine of the Book of Romans that Christ made us legally justified and legally righteous. Even more importantly, the substitution of moral debt onto Christ (like a cosigner of a loan) is completely impossible.


Response #21: 

Blessedly, I don't know any Bible verses that suggest such a view even be considered. This is the difference between traditional theology – which is a lot like traditional philosophy – and studying the Bible.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.


Ichthys Home