Here is a summary of the evidences of being a believer or unbeliever as found in 1 John:
INTERNAL EVIDENCE
1a. [+] Love brothers (1Jn 2:7-11; 3:14,23; 4:7,16,21)
1b. [-] Do not love the brothers (1Jn 3:10,14-15; 4:8,12,20)
2a. [-] Love the world (1Jn 2:15-17)
2b. [+] Will overcome the world (1Jn 5:4)
3a. [+] Believe in Jesus as God's Son and the Christ (1Jn 3:23; 5:1,5,10,13)
3b. [-] Do not believe that Jesus is Christ and God's Son (1Jn 5:10)
4. [+] His commandments are not burdensome (1Jn 5:3)
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
1a. [+] Keep His [Jesus' and God the Father's] commandments (1Jn 2:3-8; 3:22-23; 5:2-3)
1b. [+] Practices righteousness (1Jn 2:29; 3:7,9)
1c. [+] Does not practice sin (1Jn 3:9; 5:18)
1d. [-] Practices sin (1Jn 3:6,8,10)
2a. [+] Acknowledge the Son as the Christ (1Jn 2:23; 4:15)
2b. [+] Confesses that Jesus came in the flesh (1Jn 4:2)
2c. [-] Denies Jesus is the Christ (1Jn 2:22-23)
2d. [-] Denies that Jesus came in the flesh (1Jn 4:3)
3. [-] Go out from the brethren (1Jn 2:19)
4a. [-] Will not help his brother (1Jn 3:17)
4b. [+] Will help brothers (1Jn 3:18-19)
Now, clearly 1 John is very black and white. There are either people: (1) who love the brethren or who do not love them (and even hate them and go out from them), (2) who love the world or who overcome the world, (3) who believe in Jesus as the Christ and as God's Son or who do not believe, (4) who keep His commandments and practice righteousness or who practice sin, (5) who acknowledge Jesus is the Christ or who deny Him, (6) who confess Jesus came in the flesh or who deny it, and (7) who will help brothers in need or who will not help. I believe that captures all of the black-and-white tests of salvation in 1 John.
In reality, there are probably many people who do not manifest all of the positive attributes or the negative attributes above. Obviously, John is not wrong, he is just speaking in absolutes in the way that God sees things. There are only two classes of people in the end: those who love God and His people and manifest that love in various ways, and those who do not love Him or His people and manifest that unloving heart in various ways. There are certainly varying degrees of love and unlovingness, however, and that is where the lines seem to get blurry.
What one can easily see is that many professed Christians who are not truly saved can profess Jesus is the Christ and that He came in the flesh and help other Christians. The externals certainly do not prove another's salvation. It is only evidence. The internal motives and desires of the heart are what really count. We can definitively say that someone does not know God if they manifest the negative attributes above, but we cannot say with absolute certainty that they know God if they manifest the positive attributes.
So, what we conclude is that John is not giving us true proof of salvation when it comes to other individuals, but only good indications. When evaluating ourselves versus other individuals, what is the only difference? With ourselves we can get good glimpses of our heart, whereas with others we cannot. So, when evaluating ourselves, if we can at all find proof of salvation, it must be on the basis of us knowing our hearts better than anyone else. And thus it is the internal attributes above that are the best proof of our salvation. These evidences are loving other Christians, not loving the world, believing that Jesus is the Christ and God's Son (one with God the Father), and not feeling that His commandments are burdensome (drudgery). If we have a measure of these attributes, then we can be assured of our salvation.
It is my belief that 1 John is not exhaustive in its teaching about how we can know we are God's children. The whole Bible must be used. What is clear to me is that truly godly desires and emotions, such as love of God and an unnatural inclination to love other Christians, must of necessity be the work of the Holy Spirit and prove our fellowship with God. For instance, a desire to be free from sin because it offends God is a godly desire that demonstrates our love of God. If that desire is strong, we can be quite certain that we are in Christ. That desire to be free from sin, by the way, results in practicing righteousness. If no desire to be free from sin exists, then there will be a practicing of sin, instead. Every evidence in 1 John somehow relates back to heart desires and the genuiness of our faith and love of God.
It is my belief that if we are not demonstrating the negative attributes seen above, and we can genuinely detect godly desires and love in our hearts, then we can be sure of our salvation. Again, there are degrees of love and godly desires, so do not be desparing if you do not detect in your heart deep love or strong holy desires in your heart. Even if weak desires and weak love of God exist that is evidence of saving faith. Do not dispare, but do strive after God with your strength and seek more faith. With a deeper relationship with God comes greater faith and greater assurance. We should also remember that Satan would love to put and keep God's children in depression and doubt. Lack of assurance is not evidence of being unsaved but of a lack of faith. All Christians lack faith since perfect faith does not come until heaven.
October 20, 2011
October 12, 2011
Assurance of Salvation
We live in a time when “Christianity” is the largest religious group in the world. Jesus predicted that Christianity would expand. However, in some parables He seemed to indicate that there would be false professors within the Church (Matt. 13:31-33). Paul and other apostles warn against false prophets who would creep into the Church (Acts 20:29). Jesus also indicated that there would be many people who claimed to know Him as Lord in the Day of Judgment but who never truly knew Him (Matt. 7:21-22). So, this brings up the important question: How can we be sure that we are not a part of this false Christianity—that we are not unsaved professed ‘Christians’?
If you have asked yourself this question in the past, then I fear less for you than for other people who have never questioned the genuineness of their faith. Though, I believe there are some Christians who have been given a gift of faith and who do truly never doubt their salvation. For most of us, though, we lack faith and have enough sin in our lives that we sometimes wonder if we are truly His children. We frankly are lacking in the fruit of the Spirit, and so we wonder. Paul told people to examine themselves to see if they were truly God’s children (2 Cor. 13:5). A whole book of the Bible (1 John) is dedicated to tests of genuine faith. But surely we are not to be continually questioning our faith, right? When do we have assurance of salvation and when do we test ourselves?
These questions have all been very important to me, since I have at times struggled with assurance and people around me have struggled with it. The Bible has the answers. It teaches us that any Christian can and should come to full assurance of salvation (1 John 5:13; 2 Tim. 1:12; 1:7). There’s no need to live in perpetual doubts and questions.
Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, and genuine faith in Christ alone for salvation only comes from a miraculous work of the Spirit of God (Eph. 2:8). Works are evidences of faith and not a means of salvation (Gal. 2:16; James 2:17). All true Christians understand this last point, though it can be partially forgotten. There are a couple of things we can conclude from these points. We know then that assurance of salvation has to ultimately stem from complete faith in Christ alone. Assurance cannot come simply from examining ourselves and our works. Also, we can conclude that genuine faith is somehow inherently distinct from an imposter faith. These conclusions provide an important basis for determining the importance of good works and the examination of our hearts and actions.
When we were first saved, we trusted not at all in our works but only in Jesus Christ. The Bible promises repeatedly without exception and without apology that those who humbly trust in Jesus for their salvation will be saved (John 3:16; Gal. 2:16; Romans 3:22; 3:28; 5:1; 1 Thess. 4:14; 1 John 5:1). These promises can and should be fully trusted. Never add good works to a sort-of recipe for salvation! All false religions add works to the mix. True saving faith persistently says, “Jesus alone is my hope and righteousness. I humbly confess my complete unworthiness of salvation and my vileness apart from Him!” No matter how godly we become after salvation, our hearts still understand this message. Christ is our only sure hope of heaven. We can never point to our good works and say, “That’s why I’m going to be in heaven.”
Most of Christendom, as best I can tell, does not understand this most fundamental truth. Most of professed Christians are resting partly in one or more of their works for salvation, whether it be confessions, a sinner’s prayer, walking an aisle, giving money to the poor, or living a moral life. No one who ultimately rests in any one of their good works is genuinely saved. If they never dropped all their striving for salvation and dropped all their filthy rags of self-righteousness (Is. 64:6) and humbly trusted the gift of redemption in Jesus Christ, they were never saved.
Look at what the false professors will say to Jesus in the Day of Judgment: “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?” (Matt. 7:22). They say, in effect, look what we have done for You in Your name! They do not plead the perfect righteousness of Christ. They do not cry out for mercy because He had died for them. They do not humbly admit their unworthiness—just the opposite. They try to prove their worthiness! How foolish. Most of Christendom will be trying to prove their worthiness before Christ in the judgment, I believe. Are we in that group?
What is the difference between genuine faith and imposter faith, then? Genuine faith is born of the Spirit of God and has certain unique characteristics that cannot ever come from a spiritually dead heart: (1) it is a profoundly humble faith, (2) it is a faith resting fully in Christ alone for redemption, (3) it a heart-changing faith, and (4) it is a sustained faith that cannot fully die. The Bible presents the consistent message that a saved person is at some level characterized by humility (Ps. 149:4; Luke 18:13; 1 Pet. 5:6; James 4:10). That is certainly not to say that a saved person has no issues with pride (1 Tim. 3:6; 2 Chr. 32:25-26), but humility is foundational to their salvation (Ps. 149:4). It is a humility of heart before God that says, “I am not worthy of the least of Your mercies, and I have no hope outside of Your Son.” This is in contrast to the proud Pharisees who believed their own righteousness was good enough to win God’s favor (Mark 2:16-18). Genuine faith sees no hope in the flesh (Acts 4:12; Rom. 3:28; 7:18; Phil. 3:3). Genuine faith is heart deep, not skin deep. It is not just received by the mind, it deeply touches the heart (2 Cor. 5:17; Ez. 36:26). One who genuinely trusts in only Jesus Christ cannot but love Him for His loving grace (1 John 4:19). So, true faith impacts the heart, which means there will be repentance from sins (Mark 1:15; 2 Cor. 5:7; 2 John 1:6; 1 John 5:3; John 14:21). Love for God will most certainly result in a desire to keep His commandments (even though very imperfectly). Finally, this true faith is from God and is sustained by Him (Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:6). God will never fail. Those who are given faith by God will persevere in that faith. That does not mean that Christians never doubt or temporarily wonder about Jesus, like John the Baptist did (Matt. 11:2-3). Christians can be plagued with chronic doubts. No, the point is that God will keep picking up His child and never let them ultimately turn away from Him (Ps. 37:23-24). Imposter faith never has all these characteristics. It may be that our faith so obviously has had these characteristics, and we can find a good measure of assurance from it.
So, what is the point of examining ourselves if works are not necessary for salvation? If we don’t bear any good fruit or our lives are filled with only rotten fruit, then our faith is found to be invalid (Luke 6:43-44; 1 John 3:8-10). Examining our external works, I believe, can only prove if our faith is false. We cannot prove our faith by merely examining our physical works. We can, however, prove that our faith is not genuine saving faith by examining our works. Now, that said, examining our hearts and desires and actions, as shown from 1 John, can help assure us of salvation. Particularly, our heart desires can strongly indicate the genuineness of our faith. As I just mentioned in the last paragraph, and as is taught in 1 John over and over again, saving faith has certain attributes that we can examine to be assured by, but this is still ultimately not proof. Once we see that our faith seems to be genuine, saving faith, we still can do nothing but rest simply and fully in Jesus for salvation. (It is interesting that in 2 Cor. 13:5-6, Paul does not directly call on the Corinthians to examine their works but rather indicates that they should examine their hearts to see if Christ was in them.)
I think it is like this. If we have reason to question our salvation, we should examine ourselves. Examining ourselves should either prove our faith to be invalid, or it should assure us that it is real and from God. In the case of a lack of good fruit in our lives, however, examining our hearts and our works may seem to get us nowhere. It may not assure us or invalidate our faith. In such a case, the only cure for a lack of assurance may be to “make our calling and election sure” by pursuing God more passionately, seeking opportunities to grow spiritually, and to look again with renewed faith to the Cross for forgiveness and redemption. People who will not find assurance from examining themselves would be people who aren’t able to easily discern that their faith has the characteristics discussed above, and who do not see good evidence of a new heart and new desires in their lives. Basically, these people have weak faith or, in the worst case, no true faith.
The bottom line is this: No one who is consistently sorrowful over their sins, who humbly and fully trusts only in the work of Jesus for salvation, who desires godliness for non-selfish reasons (no matter how weak that desire), who desires to be free from sin, and who has a measure of love for God and His people, cannot possibly be lost no matter how little fruit in their lives. (Actually, these desires and heart attitudes are evidence in and of themselves.) There are certain evidences in a Christian’s life that are infallible proofs of a new heart, I believe. These evidences are impossible for an unregenerate heart to possess. If you possess genuine faith in Christ, you can be absolutely assured of salvation and eternal life. The question is simply, “Is your faith genuine?” Hopefully I gave a good summary of what genuine faith looks like.
Here are some reasons why a person probably should examine themselves. You should examine yourself if people are not seeing Christ in your life and they confront you on it, like Paul did in the case of the Corinthians. You probably should examine yourself if you have never done so. You might examine yourself if you feel far from God (this is usually the result of a sin problem). You should examine yourself if you have never felt assured that your faith is genuine.
Once you find assurance, I believe it is wrong to obsess or to fearfully keep returning to examine yourself. Periodic examining of yourself may not be wrong, but it should not be a perpetual examination. (I’m talking about examining yourself to see if you are truly a believer. Examining yourself for sin is something that should be perpetual.) God wants His children to eventually rest peacefully in hope of eternal life (1 John 5:13). He does not intend on us doubting over and over again. Pray for greater faith if you are one who returns to doubts. The exhortations to examine yourself in the Bible, I believe, are intended for people who do not have a good testimony and who have never examined themselves to the point of finding assurance. We must also notice that Paul was apparently relatively assured that the Corinthians would be not be found to be unbelievers even after examination (2 Cor. 13:5-6; 8:9; 1:7). He spoke with the assumption that they were believers. Paul appears to have had good hope even for many of these people with poor testimonies.
If you have asked yourself this question in the past, then I fear less for you than for other people who have never questioned the genuineness of their faith. Though, I believe there are some Christians who have been given a gift of faith and who do truly never doubt their salvation. For most of us, though, we lack faith and have enough sin in our lives that we sometimes wonder if we are truly His children. We frankly are lacking in the fruit of the Spirit, and so we wonder. Paul told people to examine themselves to see if they were truly God’s children (2 Cor. 13:5). A whole book of the Bible (1 John) is dedicated to tests of genuine faith. But surely we are not to be continually questioning our faith, right? When do we have assurance of salvation and when do we test ourselves?
These questions have all been very important to me, since I have at times struggled with assurance and people around me have struggled with it. The Bible has the answers. It teaches us that any Christian can and should come to full assurance of salvation (1 John 5:13; 2 Tim. 1:12; 1:7). There’s no need to live in perpetual doubts and questions.
Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, and genuine faith in Christ alone for salvation only comes from a miraculous work of the Spirit of God (Eph. 2:8). Works are evidences of faith and not a means of salvation (Gal. 2:16; James 2:17). All true Christians understand this last point, though it can be partially forgotten. There are a couple of things we can conclude from these points. We know then that assurance of salvation has to ultimately stem from complete faith in Christ alone. Assurance cannot come simply from examining ourselves and our works. Also, we can conclude that genuine faith is somehow inherently distinct from an imposter faith. These conclusions provide an important basis for determining the importance of good works and the examination of our hearts and actions.
When we were first saved, we trusted not at all in our works but only in Jesus Christ. The Bible promises repeatedly without exception and without apology that those who humbly trust in Jesus for their salvation will be saved (John 3:16; Gal. 2:16; Romans 3:22; 3:28; 5:1; 1 Thess. 4:14; 1 John 5:1). These promises can and should be fully trusted. Never add good works to a sort-of recipe for salvation! All false religions add works to the mix. True saving faith persistently says, “Jesus alone is my hope and righteousness. I humbly confess my complete unworthiness of salvation and my vileness apart from Him!” No matter how godly we become after salvation, our hearts still understand this message. Christ is our only sure hope of heaven. We can never point to our good works and say, “That’s why I’m going to be in heaven.”
Most of Christendom, as best I can tell, does not understand this most fundamental truth. Most of professed Christians are resting partly in one or more of their works for salvation, whether it be confessions, a sinner’s prayer, walking an aisle, giving money to the poor, or living a moral life. No one who ultimately rests in any one of their good works is genuinely saved. If they never dropped all their striving for salvation and dropped all their filthy rags of self-righteousness (Is. 64:6) and humbly trusted the gift of redemption in Jesus Christ, they were never saved.
Look at what the false professors will say to Jesus in the Day of Judgment: “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?” (Matt. 7:22). They say, in effect, look what we have done for You in Your name! They do not plead the perfect righteousness of Christ. They do not cry out for mercy because He had died for them. They do not humbly admit their unworthiness—just the opposite. They try to prove their worthiness! How foolish. Most of Christendom will be trying to prove their worthiness before Christ in the judgment, I believe. Are we in that group?
What is the difference between genuine faith and imposter faith, then? Genuine faith is born of the Spirit of God and has certain unique characteristics that cannot ever come from a spiritually dead heart: (1) it is a profoundly humble faith, (2) it is a faith resting fully in Christ alone for redemption, (3) it a heart-changing faith, and (4) it is a sustained faith that cannot fully die. The Bible presents the consistent message that a saved person is at some level characterized by humility (Ps. 149:4; Luke 18:13; 1 Pet. 5:6; James 4:10). That is certainly not to say that a saved person has no issues with pride (1 Tim. 3:6; 2 Chr. 32:25-26), but humility is foundational to their salvation (Ps. 149:4). It is a humility of heart before God that says, “I am not worthy of the least of Your mercies, and I have no hope outside of Your Son.” This is in contrast to the proud Pharisees who believed their own righteousness was good enough to win God’s favor (Mark 2:16-18). Genuine faith sees no hope in the flesh (Acts 4:12; Rom. 3:28; 7:18; Phil. 3:3). Genuine faith is heart deep, not skin deep. It is not just received by the mind, it deeply touches the heart (2 Cor. 5:17; Ez. 36:26). One who genuinely trusts in only Jesus Christ cannot but love Him for His loving grace (1 John 4:19). So, true faith impacts the heart, which means there will be repentance from sins (Mark 1:15; 2 Cor. 5:7; 2 John 1:6; 1 John 5:3; John 14:21). Love for God will most certainly result in a desire to keep His commandments (even though very imperfectly). Finally, this true faith is from God and is sustained by Him (Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:6). God will never fail. Those who are given faith by God will persevere in that faith. That does not mean that Christians never doubt or temporarily wonder about Jesus, like John the Baptist did (Matt. 11:2-3). Christians can be plagued with chronic doubts. No, the point is that God will keep picking up His child and never let them ultimately turn away from Him (Ps. 37:23-24). Imposter faith never has all these characteristics. It may be that our faith so obviously has had these characteristics, and we can find a good measure of assurance from it.
So, what is the point of examining ourselves if works are not necessary for salvation? If we don’t bear any good fruit or our lives are filled with only rotten fruit, then our faith is found to be invalid (Luke 6:43-44; 1 John 3:8-10). Examining our external works, I believe, can only prove if our faith is false. We cannot prove our faith by merely examining our physical works. We can, however, prove that our faith is not genuine saving faith by examining our works. Now, that said, examining our hearts and desires and actions, as shown from 1 John, can help assure us of salvation. Particularly, our heart desires can strongly indicate the genuineness of our faith. As I just mentioned in the last paragraph, and as is taught in 1 John over and over again, saving faith has certain attributes that we can examine to be assured by, but this is still ultimately not proof. Once we see that our faith seems to be genuine, saving faith, we still can do nothing but rest simply and fully in Jesus for salvation. (It is interesting that in 2 Cor. 13:5-6, Paul does not directly call on the Corinthians to examine their works but rather indicates that they should examine their hearts to see if Christ was in them.)
I think it is like this. If we have reason to question our salvation, we should examine ourselves. Examining ourselves should either prove our faith to be invalid, or it should assure us that it is real and from God. In the case of a lack of good fruit in our lives, however, examining our hearts and our works may seem to get us nowhere. It may not assure us or invalidate our faith. In such a case, the only cure for a lack of assurance may be to “make our calling and election sure” by pursuing God more passionately, seeking opportunities to grow spiritually, and to look again with renewed faith to the Cross for forgiveness and redemption. People who will not find assurance from examining themselves would be people who aren’t able to easily discern that their faith has the characteristics discussed above, and who do not see good evidence of a new heart and new desires in their lives. Basically, these people have weak faith or, in the worst case, no true faith.
The bottom line is this: No one who is consistently sorrowful over their sins, who humbly and fully trusts only in the work of Jesus for salvation, who desires godliness for non-selfish reasons (no matter how weak that desire), who desires to be free from sin, and who has a measure of love for God and His people, cannot possibly be lost no matter how little fruit in their lives. (Actually, these desires and heart attitudes are evidence in and of themselves.) There are certain evidences in a Christian’s life that are infallible proofs of a new heart, I believe. These evidences are impossible for an unregenerate heart to possess. If you possess genuine faith in Christ, you can be absolutely assured of salvation and eternal life. The question is simply, “Is your faith genuine?” Hopefully I gave a good summary of what genuine faith looks like.
Here are some reasons why a person probably should examine themselves. You should examine yourself if people are not seeing Christ in your life and they confront you on it, like Paul did in the case of the Corinthians. You probably should examine yourself if you have never done so. You might examine yourself if you feel far from God (this is usually the result of a sin problem). You should examine yourself if you have never felt assured that your faith is genuine.
Once you find assurance, I believe it is wrong to obsess or to fearfully keep returning to examine yourself. Periodic examining of yourself may not be wrong, but it should not be a perpetual examination. (I’m talking about examining yourself to see if you are truly a believer. Examining yourself for sin is something that should be perpetual.) God wants His children to eventually rest peacefully in hope of eternal life (1 John 5:13). He does not intend on us doubting over and over again. Pray for greater faith if you are one who returns to doubts. The exhortations to examine yourself in the Bible, I believe, are intended for people who do not have a good testimony and who have never examined themselves to the point of finding assurance. We must also notice that Paul was apparently relatively assured that the Corinthians would be not be found to be unbelievers even after examination (2 Cor. 13:5-6; 8:9; 1:7). He spoke with the assumption that they were believers. Paul appears to have had good hope even for many of these people with poor testimonies.
“…in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began…” (Titus 1:2)
“…knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Gal. 2:16)
“These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:13)
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:14-15)
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn [over sin], For they shall be comforted.” (Matt. 5:3-4)
October 5, 2011
The Scientific Validity of the Bible
Expansion of the Universe
There are a number of Bible verses that talk about the heavens being stretched out (Is. 40:22; 42:5, 12; 48:13; 51:13; Jer. 10:12; Ps. 104:2; Zech. 12:1). The heavens were the part of the universe that were made first (Gen. 1:1), and would seem to refer to all the space above the earth, including the sky and/or outer space. One verse even says that the heavens were stretched out like a tent for all things to dwell in it (Is. 40:22). Scientists now know that the universe is expanding. No human could have known that thousands of years ago without some special insight.
Spherical Nature of Earth
Though the Catholics in the past thought the earth was flat due to misinterpretation of verses talking about the "four winds" of the earth and such verses, which certainly do not necessarily teach such a thing, there are some verses that clearly teach the spherical nature of the earth (cf. Prov. 8:27; Is. 40:22). The most notable one describes the terminator line around the earth: "He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters [oceans] at the boundary between light [the day side] and darkness [the night side]," (Job 26:10 ESV). This is a good description of the terminator of earth, which is the circular twilight zone that runs around the earth at the very boundary between the day side of earth and the night side of earth. Now, at the time these verses were written, no later than 500 BC by the latest date, the spherical nature of the earth was still not known. The earliest writing of the Bible, the Book of Job, from where this verse is taken, traditionally is believed to have been written somewhere between 2200-1500 BC. Knowledge of the terminator line was definitely not known by science until more recent times.
The Relativity of Time
Really? The idea of the relativity of time was supposedly discovered by Einstein only about 100 years ago. But, actually, the Bible clearly talked about time being a created part of the universe that was viewed relatively by God. God existed before time began (2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2), which means it was created by Him. A long period of time can be viewed as a short period of time for God according to Psalm 90:4 (written by Moses about 1500 BC). The Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:8 says that 1000 years are like a day with God, but also a single day can be like 1000 years with Him. In other words, He exists outside of time and can view time relatively as either longer or shorter. The Bible is filled with references that God had no beginning, which requires that He be somehow unbounded by time. Isaiah 57:15 says that God "inhabits eternity" (NKJV), which seems to indicate His timeless nature and highlight the fact He exists outside of time. So, at least for God, time can be relative according to the Bible. This concept of time being a created part of the universe has only recently been confirmed as a good possibility. Time is, scientifically speaking, not much different from the three dimensions of space. It is very unlikely that any human thousands of years ago could have independently discovered that fact or have understood of their own mind that time can be relative.
The Vastness of Outer Space and the Number of Stars
The Bible treats the number of stars like the number of grains of sand on the seashore: both are uncountable by man according to the Bible (Jer. 33:22; Gen. 15:5; 22:17; Heb. 11:12). The number of stars that can be seen by the naked eye is only in the thousands, by the way. Not a huge number. But, the actual number of stars is literally innumerable even by today's modern standard. Only estimates can be made of the stars or the number of grains of sand. The unbelievable vastness of the "heavens" (the sky above the earth) was also noted in the Bible (Ps. 103:11; Is. 55:9; Heb. 7:26). Job 22:12b: "And see the highest stars, how lofty [or high] they are!" The people of the old days could never have known of themselves that the heavens were exceedingly vast. Even today we have no way of really comprehending the "height" of the heavens. It is too huge to comprehend.
Spread of Germs
The Mosaic Law instituted: 1) washing clothing and bathing in running water (Lev. 15:13, 17, 21, 22; etc.), 2) avoidance of dead things (Num. 19:14-16; Lev. 11:40), 3) avoidance of blood and some other bodily fluids, 4) quarantining (Lev. 13:43-46), 5) sanitary human waste disposal (Deu. 23:12-13), and 6) avoidance of mold-infested buildings and clothing (Lev. 14:36-53). None of these practices was known to be necessary or good by science in Moses time, c. 1500 BC. How did he know to institute these things? It was God, obviously, who created the laws. From these practices we could infer that a knowledge of germs and bacteria was somehow known by Someone during those times.
Two Healings Necessary for Sight of Blind Man
There is a peculiar story of a blind man who was healed by Jesus (Mark 8:22-26). It is strange because the blind man was initially given sight, but he did not understand what he saw or see things clearly. People looked like "trees" or, apparently, fuzzy blobs moving around. Jesus never failed to heal someone immediately in any other account, so what happened here? The best answer is that the man's eyes were initially healed, but that was insufficient for him to see clearly. Why? Modern science now shows us that people born blind need their brains rewired for them to understand what they see with their physical eyes. That is, even after their physical eyes are able to detect levels of light and colors, their brains need some number of days to interpret the data and make sense of the visual images. So, the best answer here is that Jesus healed the man's eyes, but then the man also needed his brain to be healed! This makes perfect sense according to modern neurology, but in those days they would have known nothing about this fact of how the brain works in relation to eyesight.
The Uniqueness of Man
Evolutionists try hard to paint man as nothing more than an animal. They try to obfuscate the uniqueness of mankind. Yet, the Bible indicates some ways in which man is unique among the animals. Scientific discoveries have never been able to invalidate the Bible. The Bible indicates that only man was made "in the image of God," to have a religious nature where he could worship God (read Genesis 1-2). It indicates that man was made to be able to rule over all the animals, which required greater intelligence. There are some pretty intelligent animals, like dolphins and border collies, but there are no animals that can come close to rivaling man. Music is said to be useful in worship of God (Ps. 28:7; 69:30; etc.), which implies only man should possess a developed sense of music. This is true. The Bible also indicates that man was designed to be a social creature living in community with other people (Romans 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12; etc.), which means man should be designed for social interaction with languages, families, cities, and a good understanding of emotions. These features are relatively unique to humans. You could argue that some animals have a degree of language or family relationships, but, by comparison, humans are much more designed for language and living in social communities. The Bible also claims that clothing was something man needed because of guilt and shame from sinfulness (Gen. 3:10-11; 3:21). Animals are not sinful, so they should not need clothing. Indeed, no animal appears to wear clothing to cover its body like humans do. So, clothing, language, a spiritual nature, musicality, family, and intelligence were all marked in the Bible as being especially unique to man. A greater understanding of the creatures found throughout nature has only confirmed the Bible's claim of the uniqueness of mankind.
Epigenetics and the Sins of the Fathers
This is certainly a good bit of speculation, since epigenetics is still a very new science and much is not known about how it works, but apparently environmental changes can affect one's children and grandchildren up to four generations (great-great-grandchildren). So, for instance, theoretically a chain smoker could cause their great-great-grandchildren to struggle more with a nicotine addiction. Basically, according to how epigenetics works, any chemical changes in a person's cells could potentially affect their children to three or four generations. In at least four places the Bible mentions visiting the sins of fathers on their children to three or four generations: "The LORD ... by no means clears the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation," (Num 14:18; cf. Ex 20:5; 34:7; Deu. 5:9). So, it seems that one possible good scientific answer to what the Bible is talking about is that sin problems in a person can cause chemical problems with them that physically get passed on to three or four generations and cause similar chemical problems in them that makes them more susceptible to the same sins.
Miscellaneous
I don't have time to write a full paragraph for everything, so I'll just summarize a few other random (but very interesting) things:
This post wouldn't be complete without offering a little bit of acknowledgement to the supposed scientifically inaccurate statements in the Bible. These are usually unfair and unreasonable accusations. Almost all of these "problems" stem from one of the following fallacies/abuses:
The Bible was written to specific people in their language and with their cultures in mind. Civil laws of Moses were intended to be implemented for a specific people for a specific time. Not all of the civil laws, in my opinion, were intended as the ultimate best option for all times. They were practical civil laws for a technologically simple people with their ecological environment in mind. The Bible is not strictly meant to be a book of science, though obviously it contains some spectacular scientific truths. But, for the most part, the Bible has plenty of language that was intended for simple-minded lay people and that scientists can easily scoff at for not being more precise or absolute. The use of hyssop, for example, was practical for the Israelites to use thousands of years ago, but today we can use much stronger antiseptic/antibacterial chemicals. That doesn't make the Bible wrong or stupid, it just means perhaps that the Bible in some cases of the ceremonial and civil laws had good temporary answers for one particular nation in one particular geographic location and of a particular cultural background. (But, it is still God's Word useful for learning and to teach us various things, and I suspect that there is wisdom in most of the civil laws that is beyond our current knowledge.)
Here are some often ridiculed statements in the Bible related to science, picked mostly at random:
There are a number of Bible verses that talk about the heavens being stretched out (Is. 40:22; 42:5, 12; 48:13; 51:13; Jer. 10:12; Ps. 104:2; Zech. 12:1). The heavens were the part of the universe that were made first (Gen. 1:1), and would seem to refer to all the space above the earth, including the sky and/or outer space. One verse even says that the heavens were stretched out like a tent for all things to dwell in it (Is. 40:22). Scientists now know that the universe is expanding. No human could have known that thousands of years ago without some special insight.
Spherical Nature of Earth
Though the Catholics in the past thought the earth was flat due to misinterpretation of verses talking about the "four winds" of the earth and such verses, which certainly do not necessarily teach such a thing, there are some verses that clearly teach the spherical nature of the earth (cf. Prov. 8:27; Is. 40:22). The most notable one describes the terminator line around the earth: "He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters [oceans] at the boundary between light [the day side] and darkness [the night side]," (Job 26:10 ESV). This is a good description of the terminator of earth, which is the circular twilight zone that runs around the earth at the very boundary between the day side of earth and the night side of earth. Now, at the time these verses were written, no later than 500 BC by the latest date, the spherical nature of the earth was still not known. The earliest writing of the Bible, the Book of Job, from where this verse is taken, traditionally is believed to have been written somewhere between 2200-1500 BC. Knowledge of the terminator line was definitely not known by science until more recent times.
The Relativity of Time
Really? The idea of the relativity of time was supposedly discovered by Einstein only about 100 years ago. But, actually, the Bible clearly talked about time being a created part of the universe that was viewed relatively by God. God existed before time began (2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2), which means it was created by Him. A long period of time can be viewed as a short period of time for God according to Psalm 90:4 (written by Moses about 1500 BC). The Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:8 says that 1000 years are like a day with God, but also a single day can be like 1000 years with Him. In other words, He exists outside of time and can view time relatively as either longer or shorter. The Bible is filled with references that God had no beginning, which requires that He be somehow unbounded by time. Isaiah 57:15 says that God "inhabits eternity" (NKJV), which seems to indicate His timeless nature and highlight the fact He exists outside of time. So, at least for God, time can be relative according to the Bible. This concept of time being a created part of the universe has only recently been confirmed as a good possibility. Time is, scientifically speaking, not much different from the three dimensions of space. It is very unlikely that any human thousands of years ago could have independently discovered that fact or have understood of their own mind that time can be relative.
The Vastness of Outer Space and the Number of Stars
The Bible treats the number of stars like the number of grains of sand on the seashore: both are uncountable by man according to the Bible (Jer. 33:22; Gen. 15:5; 22:17; Heb. 11:12). The number of stars that can be seen by the naked eye is only in the thousands, by the way. Not a huge number. But, the actual number of stars is literally innumerable even by today's modern standard. Only estimates can be made of the stars or the number of grains of sand. The unbelievable vastness of the "heavens" (the sky above the earth) was also noted in the Bible (Ps. 103:11; Is. 55:9; Heb. 7:26). Job 22:12b: "And see the highest stars, how lofty [or high] they are!" The people of the old days could never have known of themselves that the heavens were exceedingly vast. Even today we have no way of really comprehending the "height" of the heavens. It is too huge to comprehend.
Spread of Germs
The Mosaic Law instituted: 1) washing clothing and bathing in running water (Lev. 15:13, 17, 21, 22; etc.), 2) avoidance of dead things (Num. 19:14-16; Lev. 11:40), 3) avoidance of blood and some other bodily fluids, 4) quarantining (Lev. 13:43-46), 5) sanitary human waste disposal (Deu. 23:12-13), and 6) avoidance of mold-infested buildings and clothing (Lev. 14:36-53). None of these practices was known to be necessary or good by science in Moses time, c. 1500 BC. How did he know to institute these things? It was God, obviously, who created the laws. From these practices we could infer that a knowledge of germs and bacteria was somehow known by Someone during those times.
Two Healings Necessary for Sight of Blind Man
There is a peculiar story of a blind man who was healed by Jesus (Mark 8:22-26). It is strange because the blind man was initially given sight, but he did not understand what he saw or see things clearly. People looked like "trees" or, apparently, fuzzy blobs moving around. Jesus never failed to heal someone immediately in any other account, so what happened here? The best answer is that the man's eyes were initially healed, but that was insufficient for him to see clearly. Why? Modern science now shows us that people born blind need their brains rewired for them to understand what they see with their physical eyes. That is, even after their physical eyes are able to detect levels of light and colors, their brains need some number of days to interpret the data and make sense of the visual images. So, the best answer here is that Jesus healed the man's eyes, but then the man also needed his brain to be healed! This makes perfect sense according to modern neurology, but in those days they would have known nothing about this fact of how the brain works in relation to eyesight.
The Uniqueness of Man
Evolutionists try hard to paint man as nothing more than an animal. They try to obfuscate the uniqueness of mankind. Yet, the Bible indicates some ways in which man is unique among the animals. Scientific discoveries have never been able to invalidate the Bible. The Bible indicates that only man was made "in the image of God," to have a religious nature where he could worship God (read Genesis 1-2). It indicates that man was made to be able to rule over all the animals, which required greater intelligence. There are some pretty intelligent animals, like dolphins and border collies, but there are no animals that can come close to rivaling man. Music is said to be useful in worship of God (Ps. 28:7; 69:30; etc.), which implies only man should possess a developed sense of music. This is true. The Bible also indicates that man was designed to be a social creature living in community with other people (Romans 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12; etc.), which means man should be designed for social interaction with languages, families, cities, and a good understanding of emotions. These features are relatively unique to humans. You could argue that some animals have a degree of language or family relationships, but, by comparison, humans are much more designed for language and living in social communities. The Bible also claims that clothing was something man needed because of guilt and shame from sinfulness (Gen. 3:10-11; 3:21). Animals are not sinful, so they should not need clothing. Indeed, no animal appears to wear clothing to cover its body like humans do. So, clothing, language, a spiritual nature, musicality, family, and intelligence were all marked in the Bible as being especially unique to man. A greater understanding of the creatures found throughout nature has only confirmed the Bible's claim of the uniqueness of mankind.
Epigenetics and the Sins of the Fathers
This is certainly a good bit of speculation, since epigenetics is still a very new science and much is not known about how it works, but apparently environmental changes can affect one's children and grandchildren up to four generations (great-great-grandchildren). So, for instance, theoretically a chain smoker could cause their great-great-grandchildren to struggle more with a nicotine addiction. Basically, according to how epigenetics works, any chemical changes in a person's cells could potentially affect their children to three or four generations. In at least four places the Bible mentions visiting the sins of fathers on their children to three or four generations: "The LORD ... by no means clears the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation," (Num 14:18; cf. Ex 20:5; 34:7; Deu. 5:9). So, it seems that one possible good scientific answer to what the Bible is talking about is that sin problems in a person can cause chemical problems with them that physically get passed on to three or four generations and cause similar chemical problems in them that makes them more susceptible to the same sins.
Miscellaneous
I don't have time to write a full paragraph for everything, so I'll just summarize a few other random (but very interesting) things:
- Water cycle understood [Ecc. 1:7]— not scientifically discovered until about 1700's
- Jet streams and wind cycles [Ecc. 1:6]— not scientifically discovered until about 1900's
- Sea currents understood [?] [Ps. 8:8-9]— not scientifically discovered until more recently
- 8th day of circumcision was best for blood clotting [Gen. 17:12]— not scientifically discovered until more recently
- There is a weight for air [Job 28:24-25]— not scientifically discovered until more recently
- There are springs in the seas (hydrothermal vents) [Job 38:16]— not scientifically discovered until more recently
- Pleiades gravitationally bound to each other (it's a star cluster), whereas belt of Orion stars are not gravitationally bound [Job 38:31]
- Man is essentially composed of the elements of the ground [Ecc. 3:20; Gen. 3:19; Ps. 104:29]
- Use of antiseptic hyssop [Lev. 14:4-7; Num. 19:18; cf. Ps. 51:7]
- Dimensions of Noah's Ark were excellent for preventing capsizing
- Bacteria are like microscopic worms, and secular history states that Herod died rather quickly of a bacterial disease as described in Acts 12:23
- Emotions can affect one's health [Prov. 17:22; Ps. 31:10]; and sorrow causes sleepiness [Luke 22:45]
- The earth has multiple foundational layers [Ps. 104:5]
- Blood is life-giving and life-sustaining [Lev. 17:11, 14]
- Earth is not hung on anything [Job 26:7]
- Time, space, and matter are all seen in the first verse of Genesis [Gen. 1:1]
- There may be a possible reference to the visible matter being made from unseen subatomic particles [?] [Heb. 11:3]
- The dietary laws of Moses were a good rule of thumb for keeping the Israelites healthy
- Serpents (or snakes) once had functional, rear legs as could be alluded to in Genesis 3
- The earth has protective shields (e.g., ozone layer and magnetic field) [Ps 47:9]
- The earth was founded upon underground "seas" (aquifers) and rivers (subterranean rivers) [?] [Ps 24:1-2]
- The earth is governed by the laws of the universe and not the other way around [Job 38:33]; this implies that geocentricity is not true, since that makes the heavens above governed by the earth.
This post wouldn't be complete without offering a little bit of acknowledgement to the supposed scientifically inaccurate statements in the Bible. These are usually unfair and unreasonable accusations. Almost all of these "problems" stem from one of the following fallacies/abuses:
- a lack of understanding of the concept of relative perspective or language,
- unbelief of the infinite power of God to work miracles and suspend the laws of nature,
- translation issues related to KJV or other Bible versions,
- supposed contradictions between different passages with different meanings,
- unfairly using quotes from fallible biblical figures to show unscientific statements,
- presuming something is impossible because we don't know how it could be possible,
- interpreting clearly poetic literature literally that is not intended to be purely literal,
- assuming that there are no exceptions to a statement just because exceptions aren't stated,
- an assumption that symbolic or ceremonial practices were instructing us about medicine or science,
- not allowing the Bible to use imprecise or unscientific or poetic/non-literal language.
The Bible was written to specific people in their language and with their cultures in mind. Civil laws of Moses were intended to be implemented for a specific people for a specific time. Not all of the civil laws, in my opinion, were intended as the ultimate best option for all times. They were practical civil laws for a technologically simple people with their ecological environment in mind. The Bible is not strictly meant to be a book of science, though obviously it contains some spectacular scientific truths. But, for the most part, the Bible has plenty of language that was intended for simple-minded lay people and that scientists can easily scoff at for not being more precise or absolute. The use of hyssop, for example, was practical for the Israelites to use thousands of years ago, but today we can use much stronger antiseptic/antibacterial chemicals. That doesn't make the Bible wrong or stupid, it just means perhaps that the Bible in some cases of the ceremonial and civil laws had good temporary answers for one particular nation in one particular geographic location and of a particular cultural background. (But, it is still God's Word useful for learning and to teach us various things, and I suspect that there is wisdom in most of the civil laws that is beyond our current knowledge.)
Here are some often ridiculed statements in the Bible related to science, picked mostly at random:
- The moon is considered a distinct light for the earth [Is. 30:26; 60:19; Jer. 31:35; Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:24; Gen. 1:16]. This falls under the type (1) fallacy above. This is cited as a problem since the moon doesn't generate its own light. Yet, the moonlight (who has a problem saying that?), from the perspective of earth, is coming straight from the moon and can be appropriately called "the light of the moon." We know that the light from the moon actually originates with the sun, but it is not necessary to specify that when we are considering a relative perspective from earth. Practically speaking, the moon often functions as a light during the night time, even if the light doesn't originate with the moon, and the Bible is indicating that was part of its intended functional purpose. (Jeremiah 31:35 shows that the concept of the moon giving light is only a relative, practical statement, since the moon is said to stop giving light when it is blocked by clouds.) When you get right down to it, there would be no moonlight without the moon. The sun, by itself, is entirely insufficient to produce the moonlight during the night. So, the moon is a distinct source (albeit indirect source) of light for the earth. When it is visible at night, it functionally acts like any other kind of light, regardless of the original source of the light waves.
- The sun is said to rise and set. This is clearly an example of the type (1) fallacy above. I doubt I need to explain this one.
- According to the Bible, PI can be calculated to be 3 [1 Kings 7:23]. This falls under the type (10) fallacy above. The Bible often uses approximations, like we all do, and so it should not be a surprise if the Bible doesn't give us a 100% precise measurement for PI. The value of PI always has to be approximated, anyway. In mathematics, it is well known that there is a difference between accuracy and precision. 3 is an accurate approximation for PI, though it is not very precise. 3.1 is also an accurate approximation of PI, though it too is not very precise. If we prefer to use whole numbers, and say that the circumference of something perfectly circular is 30 and its diameter is 10, we could be entirely accurate. How? The diameter could be 9.677... (rounding to 10) and the circumference would be precisely 9.677...x PI = 30.40... (which rounds to 30). So, 1 Kings 7:23 is just using whole number values for the circumference and diameter.
- The sun and moon "stood still" in the sky during Joshua's days [Josh. 10:13]. This falls under the type (1) and type (2) fallacies above. This obviously would have needed to have been a huge miracle. But, all miracles are huge. The statement about the sun not moving in the sky is obviously a purely relative statement and should not be criticized. Some frame of reference always has to be used. The Bible generally, for obvious practical reasons, uses the surface of the earth as a point of reference.
- The "heavens" are said to have pillars [Job 26:11]. This falls under the type (5) and (10) fallacies above. This is an example of using a quote from a human as proof of the Bible's unscientific nature. Job wasn't necessarily accurate in saying the heavens have pillars, but there is another better answer. In Ex. 13:22 (also Ps. 99:7), it talks about a "pillar of the cloud" and uses the same Hebrew word for "pillar". So, Job was probably speaking about pillar-like clouds in the sky.
- The Bible talks about using birds, cedar wood, and water to cleanse moldy houses [Lev. 14:49-53]. This falls under the type (9) and (6) fallacies above. The Law of Moses contained many types and symbolic practices that may have had little or nothing to do with actual remedies or medicine or physical benefits. The New Testament clearly indicates this fact [Heb. 10:1-2]. This same passage, however, talks about using hyssop and water and cedar wood. Hyssop is known to be antibacterial and may have helped kill off the mold. Cedar oil in cedar wood also is known to have anti-fungal and antibacterial properties and would have helped kill the mold when used with water and hyssop. Who knows if the birds were just intended to be sacrificial—v.53 makes it clear that it was partly meant to be used for ceremonial purposes—or if they had some kind of benefit that we don't know about yet.
- A woman who was accused of adultery was subjected to "bitter water" to see if she was guilty or not [Num. 5:11-31]. This could fall under (9) and (6) and (2) above. Who knows what this bitter water was that they used. It is likely that the bitter water had no effect by itself, and God would miraculously produce the correct result. Alternatively, it is possible the bitter water "worked" in connection to emotional guilt and caused the woman to feel sick, as a sort of "anti-placebo" effect or nocebo, as it is called. If the woman was truly guilty, and she believed the water would make her sick, it is quite possible that she would feel sick from it because of this nocebo effect. Basically, it would have been a simple lie-detector test.
- There are said to be four corners of the earth [Rev. 7:1; 20:8]. This could be an example of (1), (2), (7), and (10). The Greek word for "earth" could be translated as "land," such that these two passages could be only referring to the north, south, east, and west edges of the continent or the surrounding area. Alternatively, the language could be partly poetic and be just speaking about the four compass directions. These two passages are in a highly symbolic, prophetic book of the Bible, after all.
- Diseases are sometimes attributed to demons in the New Testament. This falls under the type (6) and maybe (8) fallacies above. Today, this is seen as superstitious and unscientific. However, there are many diseases that are not well understood. It is often not understood how a disease got started in a person. The science community at large does not recognize the existence of demons, but there is nothing in established science that invalidates their existence. If demons exist, then it is certainly possible that they could trigger some types of disease or worsen the physical condition of a person.
- Creeping things (including insects like locusts) are said to go about on four feet [Lev. 11:20-23]. This is a type (3) fallacy, perhaps. First, "creeping thing" could refer to more than just insects. The insect classification is a more modern definition. The actual verses (viz. Lev. 11:21) clearly indicate that locusts and grasshoppers were considered to have four feet used for walking and two legs (as opposed to feet) above the feet used for jumping. Obviously, it would be unbelievable that people who ate locusts would not know that they had six legs. Apparently, they simply saw that these types of insects had four feet for walking and two legs for leaping, and so they said they moved on all four (not six).
- The "stars" are said to fall from heaven in Revelation 6:13 (also Rev. 8:10). This is a type (10) fallacy. In ancient times, meteors and the visible planets were called "stars," since they looked like them in some ways. There is no reason to believe that John in Revelation was not referring to meteors rather than actual stars. Even today we speak of "shooting stars," though we are not being scientifically precise in using such language. Again, the Bible is not primarily a scientific book.
- The mustard seed is called the "least" of all seeds by Jesus [Matt. 13:31-32]. This is a (1) and maybe (7) fallacy. The mustard seed is not the ultimate smallest seed in the world. However, it is a very small seed (1 mm for the black mustard variety) as far as seeds go. Jesus' point was not to answer what the absolute smallest seed was, but to make a comparison between the seed and the kingdom of heaven. There is no reason why Jesus could not have been using relative language to make a point. Note, it appears He was specifically talking about seeds of a particular type from v. 32, namely, cultivated herbs. He probably used the mustard seed and called it the "least" of all seeds because it was locally grown and known to be the smallest seed of the herbs grown in gardens, at least in terms of the ratio between seed size and final plant size. The 1 mm seed could grow into a 8 to 9 foot-tall plant and allow for small birds to perch on it (or even make nests), as the Lord Jesus said.
September 8, 2011
Timeline of Events During the Day of the Lord?
(Note: I'm not sure all of these passages are definitely talking about the future Day of the Lord.)
- Surrounding nations will go up against Israel (minus ‘Edom’ [?]) – (Zec. 12:2-4; 14:2-4; 14:14-16; Zep. 3:8; Dan. 11:41; et al.)
- Much of the Israel (67%?) will be destroyed – (Zec. 13:8-9; 14:2-5)
- A small remnant will survive (some by fleeing to ‘Moab’) – (Zec. 14:5; Is. 16:4; 26:20; Rev. 12:15-16)
- Jesus will rapture up His people (His “bride”) from all nations in the world (Is. 26:19; 27:13; Zec. 14:5; Matt. 24:30-31; 1 Thes. 4:16-17)
- Jesus will come down with His bride and fight for the Jewish remnant (“friends of the bridegroom”?) – (Zec. 14:5; Rev. 19:14; Is. 13:9-10; et al.)
- More surrounding armies will come against the Lord – (Rev. 19:19)
- The Mount of Olives will split apart from East to West and the “goats” (invading nations) will be on the North (?) and the “sheep” (raptured believers) and the “brethren” (Jews) will be on the South (?) – (Matt. 25:31-33; Zec. 14:4; Rev. 16:18 [?])
- The majority of people in the nations will be destroyed (minus Egypt?) – (Rev. 19:20-21; Is. 19:22-24; 60:12; 66:15-16; et al.)
- The remnant of Israel will repent and be saved (9 days after the “rapture”?) – (Rom. 11:25-27; Zec. 12:10-12; Lev. 23:24-27; et al.)
- There will be a large number of people in the world who are still unbelieving – (Is. 66:19-20; Is. 2:4; 11:14-16; 14:2-3; 49:22-23; et al.)
- Jesus will rule with a rod of iron; He will execute false prophets/teachers and all criminals deserving of death (Rev. 19:15; Matt. 24:48-51; Is. 63:4-6; et al.)
- The end result will be that only a remnant of unbelievers will remain in the surrounding nations (Is. 13:11-13; 14:1-2)
- There will be a literal Supper of the Lamb in Jerusalem (?) – (Rev. 19:9; Luke 12:37; et al.)
- Some unbelievers will try to enter the Supper, but Jesus will say He does not know them (Matt. 25:10-11)
- The raptured believers will be made rulers and princes over cities (some over more cities) – (Luke 19:17; 19:19; Rev. 20:4)
- The raptured believers will be unable to have children, but the saved Jews will be having children – (Matt. 22:30; 1 Cor. 15:51-53; Is. 27:6; 54:1-3; 60:20-22; 61:9)
- The saved remnant of Israel will repopulate the area around Israel and the border will be expanded fulfilling the specific promise to Israel of large borders – (Is. 26:15; 54:2)
- The saved people will go out and evangelize the Gentiles and Jews in other parts (Is. 66:19)
- Newly saved Jews will be brought to Israel (Is. 66:20-21)
August 30, 2011
Is God Really Just?
(Here are some philosophical ramblings of mine that may or may not be fully biblically sound. I'm not speaking on behalf of orthodox theology. I'm only sharing my own reasoning that probably is flawed at some point or another. So, read at your own risk!)
Where does morality come from? Is something moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral? I have heard it said by atheists that morality cannot be from God but must stem from mankind's nature. They derive this idea by trying to answer the previous question and concluding that: (a) we intuitively know that God theoretically could command something immoral, like murder; and (b) that God has not always commanded what is moral, citing biblical approval of genocide and slavery and so on. The atheists, however, are using poor, circular reasoning. They assume that man's intuitive concept of morality is sound and an absolute measure of morality; then they hold God to that standard, then they arrogantly say that the God of the Bible is not always moral; and then they—to complete the circle—say that morality cannot come from God but must stem from mankind. Do you see the circularity of it? Instead, one needs to consider the opposite, humbling possibility that God's understanding of morality is sound and an absolute measure of morality and see where that leads you. It will lead you to understand that God commands what is moral because of His own intrinsic, holy nature.
Morality, like with logic, is a part of who God is by His very definition. He cannot lie (Titus 1:2). He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). He is who He is (Ex. 3:14). He cannot be tempted by sin, and He does not tempt people to sin (James 1:13). God just is the way He is and thus He cannot be immoral and He cannot command something that is immoral. He cannot be truly illogical. He cannot create a rock that is “too heavy for Him to lift,” because that is intrinsically illogical and not a part of God's reality. God can do anything but deny His very nature; creating such a rock would be for God to deny Himself. Theoretically, perhaps, He has the raw power to make an immovable object, but if He did make it He would no longer be the God who can do anything. He would be ending His Godhood, essentially. God cannot change in His eternal nature (Mal. 3:6).
When God commands something, we know that it must be consistent with morality, since morality is a part of His nature. I'm choosing my words carefully. I did not say that it was “moral” for a reason to be explained in a minute. All that was created by God was good and consistent with His moral and logical nature, as well. God would not make a lawlessly chaotic universe, for example. He made a universe governed by precise laws. God would not make a universe that strongly deceives people, but rather He has made a universe that speaks truth of Himself (Rom. 1:20). The whole universe is a sort of finite painting that indirectly tells us about the infinite Lord God.
How then did sin and pain and suffering enter in, since that is not consistent with God's moral nature? Sin and selfishness entered in because of free will. Free will, I would say, is the ability to change apart from God's input or preservation—essentially to choose to remake yourself. The problems in the world are because of a lack of true, heart knowledge of God and a personal relationship with Him. All of the real problems in the universe are not because God created them, but because of selfish and godless behavior that resulted from finite “free will”. One way to look at it is that our mere finiteness made us flawed and susceptible to pursuing folly. This limited nature led Adam and Eve to turn from God and to sin against Him. However, that does not mean that Adam and Eve were somehow blameless and that God deserves the blame! Finiteness is not evil. It is just not pure perfection. Only God is that perfect.
Now, humans were made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). This means, among other things, that we each have a spirit that has a measure of communication with God. Thus we have a conscience that roughly understands morality. This understanding is limited, however, and severely marred by the Fall of Adam and Eve. Partly because we are finite, but mostly because we are sinful, we do not naturally understand the greatness of God and the severity of our sin. Sin against an infinite and perfect God is ugly, horrible, and eternally damning. We don't really fully grasp that last point. The idea of eternal judgment isn't easy to understand or to appreciate, but it is consistent with God's holy and moral nature. Every sin must be punished. Every sin against God is an infinite injustice in that the Person being wronged is infinite.
Perfect judgment and punishment is something that only God can do. Governments can only do so much to try to bring justice in the world, and humans are only so good at determining what punishment is fair and just. Wronged individuals are too prone to emotional bias and for that reason, at the least, individuals are forbidden from personal vengeance. It was for that reason that God indicated that civil government should be set up after the Great Flood (Gen. 9:5-6). He understood that relatively impartial people were needed to carry out justice. Individuals are called to love others, not to seek judgment.
God is love. Because everyone deserves eternal punishment, every minute on earth is a gift and mercy of God. In general, God shows mercy and a type of love towards all people. All people are blessed with mercy from God. The atheist, however, sees things in reverse, and wrongly assumes that people are inherently good and deserve life and that death and pain are great evils in the world that a truly loving God would never allow. Such is the twisted and polluted thinking of fallen mankind who is unable to fathom the pure justice of God. People aren't inherently godly; they are inherently at enmity with God and rebels against His Kingship.
Back to morality. Morality is not primarily an external thing from God's viewpoint. It is an internal heart issue that has external manifestations (Matt. 15:18-19). Some action is not necessarily moral or immoral by itself, disconnected from the motives of the heart. Actions are expressions of the heart, but totally different heart desires can produce identical actions. Therefore, morality can never be defined purely in terms of actions or externals. Physically keeping the commandments of God is not the heart of morality. God's commandments are intended to show us actions or restraint that typically follows morality within the heart. That is why the Ten Commandments are much deeper than just the external actions involved; they were always intended to be understood as encompassing both action and desire. Murder, for instance, isn't about not killing. Killing isn't always wrong. Murder is about not hating fellow human beings. It's a heart thing. Thus, I said earlier that God's commandments are consistent with morality, but not necessarily “moral” by themselves. Morality stems from will and desire and personhood, not external actions viewed in isolation apart from the heart. Perfection before God requires a loving relationship with Him.
Now that we've laid the basic foundation of morality, we can begin to address some of the hard passages in Scripture where it seems at first blush that God is not consistent with His own moral nature. What about slavery? What about stoning of rebellious children? What about the merciless conquest of Canaan in the Old Testament? What about the children who were killed by a bear after making fun of the prophet (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Are these actions consistent with God's moral nature, or what we think His morality should be? Will I really defend God in these instances? Absolutely. We just need to understand the heart of God's actions; for, after all, that's where morality is really at.
The bottom line really is this, though: if the Creator is all-worthy and people are only deserving of judgment, why can't God do with any of us just as He pleases? That really quickly gives a minimal answer to almost any question pertaining to the morality of God, even if it doesn’t satisfy our finite understanding of justice. Ultimately, everyone deserves nothing good from God. We are all guilty. We are all sinners in need of His mercy. This takes lots of humility to embrace, but logically there is nothing wrong with it.
The Conquest of Canaan
Probably no bigger accusation has been leveled against God's morality than the invasion of Canaan by the Israelites and God's decree to completely remove every person, young and old, from the land (Deut. 3:6; 7:2; 12:2; 20:17). This sounds heartless. Most atheists fail to recognize a few basic facts, though. First, natural disasters are completely within God's control and many of them also indiscriminately kill people. What method God uses to kill people isn't really important to the question of morality. We might as well ask, “Why does God allow a natural disaster?” There's practically no difference according to the Bible. Second, God was patient with the Amorites and the other people of the land according to Gen. 15:16. God was slow to anger and giving them many years to change in their ways. Third, if the people of the land were not destroyed then they would have continued on greatly sinning and storing up for themselves wrath against the Day of Judgment (cf. Rom. 2:5). So, from that perspective, perhaps it was a minor mercy that God had them destroyed.
For me, the more challenging question is why would God have humans kill children and women? That is disturbing and hard for me to come to terms with. If I were one of the Israelites, I would have found that very hard to do, I think. Regardless of why, we must keep in mind that God gave the command to destroy the people of the land. This was not a faint voice in Moses' ear where he felt God was telling them to do this. Moses was a prophet who spoke directly with God. God gave him powerful revelations and instructions that he could not mistake or question. It was upon that basis alone that the Israelites could be justified in their merciless conquest of the land of Canaan. No one ever can be justified to destroy all people in a land that is being conquered. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were absolutely and tragically an evil injustice.
Here are some other things to keep in mind. God also seemingly was close to destroying the Israelites (Ex. 32:10-13)! Moses interceded on their behalf and God relented of His judgment. God has consistently destroyed people sovereignly throughout history by natural disasters and wars and other sad plights that seem indiscriminate. Also, God was not racist. Rahab was a woman of Jericho who repented and was saved (Josh. 2:1; 6:17). 'Race' had nothing to do with the decision to destroy them. God also commanded that the people of Israel be fair to the strangers in their land (Deu. 14:29; Ex. 12:49; Lev. 24:22). This included people of other races.
Was God unjust in this conquest? I think when you consider all these things together, you can begin to understand—though it is admittedly difficult—how God could seemingly be so unmerciful in this invasion of Canaan, and yet still be a God of mercy and morality. He is always the One who has the right to decide the beginning and ending of life, and He is always in control of life and death. There are no true accidents in God’s economy.
Slavery
Probably the second biggest accusation against God is that He condoned the evil practice of slavery. It is only an accusation. There are several points to consider when addressing this topic: (1) God may have allowed some slavery because of the hardness of men’s hearts (cf. Mark 10:4-6) but not fully approved of it; (2) slavery was better than death for the people being conquered; (3) slavery does not need to be cruel punishment, and God called for kind treatment of slaves (Ex. 21:26; 22:21; Lev. 25:43, 46; 19:18; Deu. 21:13-14), so not all slavery is necessarily harsh and a great evil; and (4) there are different kinds of slavery and some forms of slavery still continue today, like indebtedness. Point (4) is especially interesting. Slavery was a way that people could pay off debts (Lev. 25:39; Ex. 22:3). If you received good treatment, this option of repaying a debt would not necessarily be unthinkable. The real evil of slavery is the mistreatment of slaves. God never intended slaves to be mistreated. It was because of the sinfulness and hardness of hearts that slaves were abused.
Point (1) is also interesting. Divorce was allowed in the Old Testament, but only as a way to mitigate the negative consequences of stubborn and hard-hearted people (Mark 10:4-6). The same goes for the establishment of a monarchy in Israel. God allowed it even though it was not what He wanted (1 Sam. 8:6-7; 10:19; 12:19). It is possible that some instances of slavery were allowed for the same reason. Slavery of foreign peoples captured in war was a practice that preceded the Mosaic Law, and use of servants seems to have been well established by Moses' time, so it is quite possible that the laws concerning foreign slaves were established to mitigate the problems of slavery not to truly condone its practice in full.
All in all, slavery would not be a terrible practice if it were used rightly and with kindness in mind. Here are some provisions in the law that mitigated the harshness of slavery:
- Slavery was never intended to be permanent for Jews (Lev. 25:40); Hebrew servants could only be kept for six years (Deu. 15:12). Also, slaves were normally released at the year of Jubilee, regardless of the amount of debt owed.
- Even foreign slaves would go free if they were badly abused (Ex. 21:26-27), and some believe that they could also have their freedom purchased.
- Slaves were to rest from work like everyone else on the Sabbath (Ex. 20:10).
- Anyone found selling Hebrews was to be put to death (Deu. 24:7)!
- All slaves were to enjoy feasts (Deu. 16:14; 12:18).
There were two types of servants, then, distinguished in the Law of Moses: foreign slaves and Hebrew servants. The Hebrew servants had more protection in the Law and were expected to be kept for no more than six full years. They were not to be treated harshly or with rigor. I doubt anyone would seriously have a problem with this “slavery,” since it was based mostly on the concept of repayment of debts. The second kind of slavery was of foreigners, and the Law only offered minimal protection of them.
However, I believe this second type of slavery was primarily cultural and only allowed due to the hardness of men’s hearts as mentioned earlier. When it came to purchasing foreign slaves, I see no clear indication that God approved of the practice. I can’t prove this view; but, regardless, it is clear that God did not intend even for foreign slaves to be treated harshly. God called the Jews to love even the foreigners in the land (Deu. 10:19; Lev. 19:34), and so God obviously did not desire the Jews to be unfair and unkind to the foreign slaves. (I should also note that, from a spiritual perspective, foreigners were blessed to be slaves of God’s chosen people, since they were privileged to hear of the true God and come to faith in Him. Though that does not make it a loving practice, it may help us understand how God allowed this practice and yet was still a loving God. Anyone believing in Jehovah and willing to adopt the Mosiac Law was to be considered as a native-born Jew, by the way [cf. Ex. 12:48].)
In modern times, two problems with slavery happened: slaves in many cases were taken unjustly by greed from their homelands which had nothing to do with God’s direction or purpose, and slaves were sometimes grossly and evilly mistreated. The laws did not adequately protect slaves. If these problems had never happened, we likely wouldn't view slavery as such an evil today. What happened in America was emphatically wrong, I believe. Slavery, as permitted in the Old Testament, was different and intended to be more humane and reasonable.
Stoning of Rebellious Children
The case of stoning a rebellious son (Deu. 21:18-21) is probably the most disturbing part of the Law for many people. How is that moral? Again, people who attack the Bible miss some important points. The son apparently needed to be a drunk and a glutton (Deu. 21:20 b). This typically would indicate an older child. Certainly a young child is not in view. By the looks of it, the son needed to be a complete bum who had a perpetual habit of laziness and wastefulness and disobedience to both mother and father. This isn't a son who is just obstinate or lazy. It's a number of factors that would have been quite unusual. In fact, there is no record of this law ever being carried out.
The stoning would happen only at the initiation of the parents (Deu. 21:19). What kind of parents would do that? It would be an admission of failure on their parts. It would take parents who had completely lost control over their son and felt their child was a hopeless case. Since the parents were the ones who brought the accusation, this means that their conscience would need to be quite clear. This law put the parents, who would naturally have the most love for the son, completely in the driver's seat, which would minimize the usage of this law and would protect the child from false accusations.
We may still be struck by the apparent brutality of this law. At first glance, that may appear to be the case, but not when we consider this more closely. This law was for relatively worthless sons—both to society and the parents—who were out of control. This law was for consistently “stubborn and rebellious” sons who violated the Fifth Commandment over and over again. They were sons who knew that they were subject to death by the law. There were various problems with this type of son: drunkenness, stubbornness, gluttony, and rebelliousness to both parents. Such a person would not be easily changed, nor would they be likely productive members of society (for what that's worth). What this law shows us is the gravity of these sins. Disobedience to parents is a major sin in God's Book. Though we may not fully appreciate the seriousness of these sins, that does not make God immoral in His judgment. It just makes us poor judges of justice and God's perfect standards.
Lastly, the law pertained to sons. Perhaps the law could be applied to daughters, but I suspect not. It was intended for sons. The Bible probably would have used the word child (Hebrew, “valid”) instead of son (Hebrew, “ben”) if this law was to be used for sons or daughters. This point is important since young children and girls are generally treated with greater care and mercy. Young men are considered more independent. So, daughters were protected from this law, I believe.
The Death of the Children who Mocked the Prophet
One of the strange incidents in the OT is the case of two bears that mauled the children who repeatedly mocked the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 2:23-24). It was the Lord who judged the children. So, how was God right to do this? There are a number of instances where God seems to have judged people more harshly than we would have expected, such as the case of Uzzah who tried to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling (2 Sam. 6:6-7). These cases show us that God is in control of life and death. He has a right to decide who lives and who dies and when that happens. For every one of us, He is in control of the events in our lives. Death isn't always a judgment for specific sins. Probably normally death is not because of specific sin. So, which seems harsher: to kill someone because of no specific sin, or to kill someone because of specific sin? These difficult instances of God's judgment totally miss the point that all sin deserves to be judged by God. It totally misses the point that most death is not the result of specific sin and yet is still a general judgment from God.
God has the right to make an example out of people. In the instance of Uzzah, I believe that is what God did. Uzzah did not deserve death more than most people, but God wanted to make an example of him. In the case of the children who mocked the prophet, we must understand that the children were most likely aware that Elisha was a prophet of God. They were in effect defying God and blaspheming Him by knowingly mocking His faithful servant—repeatedly. Once again, I believe that God was making an example of these children and judging their godless parents, but not because they were necessarily worse sinners than many other people.
When it is all said and done, we can't say that God was immoral for killing these kids, since He is the One who always takes everyone from this life. If anything, we can see purpose in this otherwise random death of children, which can help us deal with our own instances of death. God has a purpose in everything. He is working everything out for His glory, since He is the only One who deserves it. But, for those whom He loves, everything also works for our good and our eventual happiness in Him. I would much rather hope in a higher purpose in so-called random tragedy than just think it was a pointless, fluke of nature. Not all natural disaster is judgment from God, by the way. God purposes are intricate and often beyond our understanding (Isa. 55:9). The young children who died in the tsunami recently did not deserve to die, in legal and civil terms. Generally, they did not commit crimes worthy of capital punishment. However, God still took them for some reason. Jesus taught, I believe, that we should not think of people as worse sinners just because some disaster befalls them (Luke 13:2-5). God's judgment is ultimately upon all mankind, even the morally upright and outstanding citizens in appearance. The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus.
August 3, 2011
Sickness and Unclean Spirits
I do like science. What I don’t like is when scientists pretend that science holds all the answers. If you could somehow measure the total amount of knowledge concerning how the created universe and spiritual world operate, scientists probably haven’t even discovered 10% of it. So, it bothers me when people dismiss demons or “unclean spirits” as myths of the Dark Ages, not just because the Bible says otherwise, but also because it can be arrogant to be emphatic about their nonexistence. After all, nonexistence logically cannot be proven.
One of the things most ridiculed about the Bible is the connection of demons with sickness. “Obviously,” the skeptic says, “sicknesses are physical problems and not related to imaginary spirits causing mischief.” Well, as it turns out, many illnesses—especially mental illnesses—are still not understood. That many mental illnesses are not caused by evil spirits is quite possible, but that doesn’t mean that some of them can’t have a demonic link, whether it is a causative or an augmentative link.
According to the Bible, fallen angels have significant power. They can cause storms (Job 1:12; 1:18-19), physical ailments (Job 2:7), and mental illness (Mark 9:20). Obviously, a meteorologist is going to say that storms follow predictable patterns completely governed by the laws of physics. 99% of the time that may be the case; but, as anyone knows, meteorologists are often incorrect in their predictions, which implies that they do not understand weather as well as they would like. Occasionally storms don’t seem to follow the standard models, in which case who knows what caused the storm to develop? Now, I’m not saying that science won’t be able to better and better predict the weather, but I’m saying that science doesn’t always explain every storm. Furthermore, I am fully convinced that demons are intelligent enough to conceal their operations from meteorologists. If they trigger a tornado, for instance, it’ll probably be in such a way that meteorologists won’t observe a sudden mysterious change in pressure.
Throughout the Bible, illnesses are viewed as either primarily rooted in a spiritual oppression or in a simple physical defect caused naturally (cf. Matt. 10:8; Mark 1:34). What one would expect, if demons are real and powerful, is that some instances of cancer, mental illness, deafness, etc. have their origination with demonic forces. The Bible tells us that that is the case. A woman, for instance, in Luke 13:11-12 had a “spirit of infirmity” for 18 years. Her spinal column was apparently damaged, but the Bible says that the physical problem was caused by demonic powers. Rarely can science trace down the way that a disease started. When people today are diagnosed with an illness, the problem is found, but the cause of the problem is often unknown. So, how can science rule out the possibility that some diseases are caused by unclean spirits? It cannot.
It is important, however, to make it perfectly clear that illness is not always caused by unclean spirits. The Bible does not say that behind every sickness there is a demon. That is absurd. The Fall of Adam and Eve is enough to account for most illnesses. An example where unclean spirits were not blamed for a physical aliment is in Mark 3:1-5. No spirit was rebuked or cast out of the man with the withered hand. So also in Hezekiah’s case his boil was apparently healed by natural means, not by casting out an evil spirit (Isaiah 38:21-22). Other cases can be found, certainly.
Also, demonic possession in the New Testament is portrayed as an extreme condition where the person possessed has little or no control over their physical body. Demons take control. Mild forms of mental illness may or may not be related to demons. We see that distress/fearfulness can be caused by demons according to 1 Sam. 16:14, but certainly not all fearfulness is caused by evil spirits. The same goes for seizures: some could be triggered by evil spirits (Luke 9:42), but there is no reason that all of them would be.
Just because neurologists today can pinpoint some brain chemistry difference with people with mental problems does not prove that demons aren’t behind it. We have to keep in mind that the spirit, mind, and brain are all intimately interconnected such that the spirit affects the physical brain. A spiritual problem will likely manifest itself by a physical dimension in the brain.
Also, demonic possession in the New Testament is portrayed as an extreme condition where the person possessed has little or no control over their physical body. Demons take control. Mild forms of mental illness may or may not be related to demons. We see that distress/fearfulness can be caused by demons according to 1 Sam. 16:14, but certainly not all fearfulness is caused by evil spirits. The same goes for seizures: some could be triggered by evil spirits (Luke 9:42), but there is no reason that all of them would be.
Just because neurologists today can pinpoint some brain chemistry difference with people with mental problems does not prove that demons aren’t behind it. We have to keep in mind that the spirit, mind, and brain are all intimately interconnected such that the spirit affects the physical brain. A spiritual problem will likely manifest itself by a physical dimension in the brain.
We should not underestimate the power of angels, fallen or un-fallen. They can do things that scientists today would consider “magic.” “Magic” is just unknown science, however. Unlike God, the angels are governed by rules of nature just like everything else. They have their limitations, but causing illness isn’t one of them.
July 27, 2011
REPOST: Quick Analysis of Near Death Experiences
Common Elements/Aspects of NDE’s
1) A “being of light” (perceived to be Jesus)
2) Feelings of intense love (regardless of religion of viewer)
3) Experiences of ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’ or both (almost regardless of faith of viewer)
4) Meeting deceased ‘relatives’ (sometimes of people they wouldn’t expect in ‘heaven’)
5) A life judgment (focused on new-age-ic ‘loving people’ mentality)
6) Knowledge dumps where people learn great knowledge
7) Visions of religious figures from other religions (regardless of religion of viewer)
8) Temporary ‘hell’ experience where people can escape
9) Being told they must return to their bodies to complete something in their lives
10) Telepathic communication
11) Reception of ‘supernatural gifts’ after being revived
12) Rare/nonexistent: Fully consistent message with Bible and God’s holiness and worth
The options for these experiences
#1) Experiences are hallucinations/dream-like visions
#2) Experiences are partially hallucinations (after tunnel experience) and partially valid OBE
#3) (Some) experiences are valid; they are experiences with beings in another realm
- a. Beings in other realm are partly good and partly bad (angels, demons, etc)
- b. Beings in other realm are entirely deceptive beings (demons)
#4) (Some) experiences are fabrications/tall-tales
Now, clearly, there are bound to be many people who are lying about their experiences (#4). However, this is unlikely to be true for many experiences, since: (1) some NDEs have been solidly validated by virtue of what was seen (accurate info validated), (2) one case was where a woman had an NDE but later called it a hallucination (this is unlikely for someone making up a story).
So, we must consider that some people (many) actually see ‘visions’ after being clinically ‘dead’. It seems clear to me that the NDEs are not all hallucinations (#1) due to the point (1) made in the last paragraph. Too many NDEs have been validated for them to all be hallucinations, in my opinion. There are cases where people’s eyes have been covered and they saw details about the operation that they were experiencing while being clinically dead—details that required sight to accurately describe.
Therefore, we are forced to conclude that either #2 or #3 is necessarily true above. In either case, NDEs include real out-of-body experiences (OBE) that require the spirit to be partially detached from the body. This requires that the spirit be able to ‘see’ apart from the body, and that the spirit be able to record memories and convey those memories back to the body upon reviving. None of this is surprising from what we see in the Bible, and none of it contradicts anything there. We are biblically forced to conclude that some (or many) NDEs are actual spiritual experiences. If the OBEs are real, it makes sense also that the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ and the ‘being of light’ are also real spiritual experiences. Therefore, #3 above is more reasonable than #2 from a biblical perspective.
Now, when looking at the wide gamut of experiences list at the top of the page, it becomes clear biblically that there is a massive deception campaign going on with these NDEs. My guess is that with modern technology, OBEs became inevitable. OBEs have the potential of finally proving scientifically that life after death really does exist. Satan would rather people not believe in life after death, since it most naturally supports the Bible. So, to prevent people from believing in the Truth, he decided to “transform himself into an angel of light” and deceive all manner of people—including professed Christians (who are not truly saved). He is, after all, the prince and the power of the ‘air’ and able to give people visions, it seems from Scriptures. So, what better way to confuse unanchored people than by making people believe:
From what I have personally read so far, there are probably no genuine experiences with Jesus that have been reported during NDEs. I suspect that such experiences only happen after a person is truly dead—separated from the body completely and unable to return. NDEs are likely the result of people being led to believe they have passed to the ‘other side,’ when they are still in the earth’s atmosphere, where Satan is able to easily deceive people.
Remember the Apostle Paul being caught up to heaven? He was unwilling to talk about it. We should be highly skeptical that anyone's experience is from God. It has to be in line with the Bible 100%...
1) A “being of light” (perceived to be Jesus)
2) Feelings of intense love (regardless of religion of viewer)
3) Experiences of ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’ or both (almost regardless of faith of viewer)
4) Meeting deceased ‘relatives’ (sometimes of people they wouldn’t expect in ‘heaven’)
5) A life judgment (focused on new-age-ic ‘loving people’ mentality)
6) Knowledge dumps where people learn great knowledge
7) Visions of religious figures from other religions (regardless of religion of viewer)
8) Temporary ‘hell’ experience where people can escape
9) Being told they must return to their bodies to complete something in their lives
10) Telepathic communication
11) Reception of ‘supernatural gifts’ after being revived
12) Rare/nonexistent: Fully consistent message with Bible and God’s holiness and worth
The options for these experiences
#1) Experiences are hallucinations/dream-like visions
#2) Experiences are partially hallucinations (after tunnel experience) and partially valid OBE
#3) (Some) experiences are valid; they are experiences with beings in another realm
- a. Beings in other realm are partly good and partly bad (angels, demons, etc)
- b. Beings in other realm are entirely deceptive beings (demons)
#4) (Some) experiences are fabrications/tall-tales
Now, clearly, there are bound to be many people who are lying about their experiences (#4). However, this is unlikely to be true for many experiences, since: (1) some NDEs have been solidly validated by virtue of what was seen (accurate info validated), (2) one case was where a woman had an NDE but later called it a hallucination (this is unlikely for someone making up a story).
So, we must consider that some people (many) actually see ‘visions’ after being clinically ‘dead’. It seems clear to me that the NDEs are not all hallucinations (#1) due to the point (1) made in the last paragraph. Too many NDEs have been validated for them to all be hallucinations, in my opinion. There are cases where people’s eyes have been covered and they saw details about the operation that they were experiencing while being clinically dead—details that required sight to accurately describe.
Therefore, we are forced to conclude that either #2 or #3 is necessarily true above. In either case, NDEs include real out-of-body experiences (OBE) that require the spirit to be partially detached from the body. This requires that the spirit be able to ‘see’ apart from the body, and that the spirit be able to record memories and convey those memories back to the body upon reviving. None of this is surprising from what we see in the Bible, and none of it contradicts anything there. We are biblically forced to conclude that some (or many) NDEs are actual spiritual experiences. If the OBEs are real, it makes sense also that the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ and the ‘being of light’ are also real spiritual experiences. Therefore, #3 above is more reasonable than #2 from a biblical perspective.
Now, when looking at the wide gamut of experiences list at the top of the page, it becomes clear biblically that there is a massive deception campaign going on with these NDEs. My guess is that with modern technology, OBEs became inevitable. OBEs have the potential of finally proving scientifically that life after death really does exist. Satan would rather people not believe in life after death, since it most naturally supports the Bible. So, to prevent people from believing in the Truth, he decided to “transform himself into an angel of light” and deceive all manner of people—including professed Christians (who are not truly saved). He is, after all, the prince and the power of the ‘air’ and able to give people visions, it seems from Scriptures. So, what better way to confuse unanchored people than by making people believe:
- Jesus is only love and everyone gets to heaven eventually [1,2,7,8 above]
- Hell is temporary [3,8]
- Loving people is most important (not loving God) [5]
- Any moralistic religion is okay and God speaks through all religions [7]
- Good works get you to heaven, rather than the finished work of Jesus on the cross [3,5,8]
From what I have personally read so far, there are probably no genuine experiences with Jesus that have been reported during NDEs. I suspect that such experiences only happen after a person is truly dead—separated from the body completely and unable to return. NDEs are likely the result of people being led to believe they have passed to the ‘other side,’ when they are still in the earth’s atmosphere, where Satan is able to easily deceive people.
Remember the Apostle Paul being caught up to heaven? He was unwilling to talk about it. We should be highly skeptical that anyone's experience is from God. It has to be in line with the Bible 100%...
The UFO Abduction and NDE Connections
The similarities between UFO abduction accounts and NDE's (Near Death Experiences) is hard to miss for me. Here is the set of common elements:
The first three points directly above I'd explain this way. As I've written about before, angels/demons can take on any form, whether that be aliens, fairies, or whatever. The feeling of being immobilized happens when someone is sleeping or almost sleeping and their bodies have been temporarily paralyzed. So, their feelings could be from their bodies rather than their spirits, or their spirits are genuinely unable to move because of the link that remains between the body and spirit, in those cases. The experiments that happen during abductions could be partly psychological explorations or attempts to obtain information about humans.
The circumstances in which these spirit-world experiences occur is worthy of note. The reason for having a spiritual experience in an NDE is obvious. The UFO abductions often occur during in and around sleep. I believe sleep is a time when the spirit is partially detached from the body causing temporary unconsciousness. The human spirit is 'operating' (for lack of a better word) on the brain during sleep. This partial detachment could be what makes the spiritual world become more tangible and open a window for demonic interference. Alternatively, some UFO abductions seem to happen to people while under hypnosis or who are involved with the New Age, both of which could also open a window to the spiritual world.
One thing I've noted is that the UFO abductions tend to be much more vague and hard to remember, which makes perfect sense when you consider that the brain records its own set of memories in parallel with the spirit, and a person's brain isn't nonfunctional until death. So, only in NDE's when a person is clinically dead will the spiritual world memories become vivid and easy to recall, since the brain has stopped recording its own memories and will not collide with alternative memories of the spirit. (By the way, a purely materialistic explanation would seem to logically fit the opposite case: the NDE's should be less vivid and more vague, and the UFO abductions should be more real.)
Now, I had to wonder what would be the reason behind these experiences being so different and so culturally dependent. Satan, I believe, according to the Bible uses every available window of opportunity to deceive people. The best opportunities are when people open windows to the spiritual world and demons can strongly influence us. The purpose of deceptions during NDE's is clear to me: (1) to convince people that God is not who the Bible says He is, (2) to give people a false sense of security, and (3) to open the door to a one-world religion. Trying to do alien abductions during death wouldn't work very well, so the best option is to fool people into thinking they've passed to the afterlife and God has welcomed them to heaven -- even if they've never trusted in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
However, during UFO abductions, the deception serves an entirely different purpose, I think: (1) to confirm people in their basic false beliefs, and (2) to manipulate people's beliefs about spirits and aliens and world politics. Here are two basic statistics about abductions that are enlightening:
The Europeans, however, are an entirely different story. They've already embraced Darwinism about as much as they can, so the way they 'need' to be deceived would be more along the lines of convincing them that the New Age is good and that spiritualism is healthy and many good and benevolent spirits are wanting to make contact with us through meditation, etc. So, abductions need to be more friendly for them to accomplish this goal of deception. And, that is precisely what you see according to evidence.
Undoubtedly, fallen angels have become the masters of deceit, and it is reasonable that a different strategy would be used for each culture -- and even for each individual. I don't think that they only think culturally. Their deceptive techniques are likely complex, and sometimes they're trying more to deceive an individual and other times the purpose may be more regional or for a whole culture.
We also have to realize that demons would not want to become obvious. Those who are materialists may easily use the cultural variations to say that the experiences originate entirely in the brain and not from a spirit world. That may also be part of their strategy. The harder it is for people to know what is going on and why, the better. That way they can use these experiences to deceive more people and in more ways and never be discovered for what they truly are.
- Time distortion (slowing or stopping, etc)
- Feeling of floating or levitating
- Going towards a light and into another realm
- Meeting other worldly beings or spirits
- Cultural variations where local beliefs influence experiences
- Telepathic communication
- Communication of emotions (love, fear, etc)
- Communication of knowledge
- Euphoric feelings after the experience (in small number of cases)
- Extraordinary abilities (mostly ESP-like) after the experience in minority of cases
- Often these involve aliens or mythical creatures
- Often there's a feeling of being immobilized
- Often experiments are reported to have been done
- These experiences are often vague recollections
The first three points directly above I'd explain this way. As I've written about before, angels/demons can take on any form, whether that be aliens, fairies, or whatever. The feeling of being immobilized happens when someone is sleeping or almost sleeping and their bodies have been temporarily paralyzed. So, their feelings could be from their bodies rather than their spirits, or their spirits are genuinely unable to move because of the link that remains between the body and spirit, in those cases. The experiments that happen during abductions could be partly psychological explorations or attempts to obtain information about humans.
The circumstances in which these spirit-world experiences occur is worthy of note. The reason for having a spiritual experience in an NDE is obvious. The UFO abductions often occur during in and around sleep. I believe sleep is a time when the spirit is partially detached from the body causing temporary unconsciousness. The human spirit is 'operating' (for lack of a better word) on the brain during sleep. This partial detachment could be what makes the spiritual world become more tangible and open a window for demonic interference. Alternatively, some UFO abductions seem to happen to people while under hypnosis or who are involved with the New Age, both of which could also open a window to the spiritual world.
One thing I've noted is that the UFO abductions tend to be much more vague and hard to remember, which makes perfect sense when you consider that the brain records its own set of memories in parallel with the spirit, and a person's brain isn't nonfunctional until death. So, only in NDE's when a person is clinically dead will the spiritual world memories become vivid and easy to recall, since the brain has stopped recording its own memories and will not collide with alternative memories of the spirit. (By the way, a purely materialistic explanation would seem to logically fit the opposite case: the NDE's should be less vivid and more vague, and the UFO abductions should be more real.)
Now, I had to wonder what would be the reason behind these experiences being so different and so culturally dependent. Satan, I believe, according to the Bible uses every available window of opportunity to deceive people. The best opportunities are when people open windows to the spiritual world and demons can strongly influence us. The purpose of deceptions during NDE's is clear to me: (1) to convince people that God is not who the Bible says He is, (2) to give people a false sense of security, and (3) to open the door to a one-world religion. Trying to do alien abductions during death wouldn't work very well, so the best option is to fool people into thinking they've passed to the afterlife and God has welcomed them to heaven -- even if they've never trusted in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
However, during UFO abductions, the deception serves an entirely different purpose, I think: (1) to confirm people in their basic false beliefs, and (2) to manipulate people's beliefs about spirits and aliens and world politics. Here are two basic statistics about abductions that are enlightening:
- Abductions in the US are often alien abductions and negative experiences
- Abductions outside the US are often positive experiences with non-alien beings
The Europeans, however, are an entirely different story. They've already embraced Darwinism about as much as they can, so the way they 'need' to be deceived would be more along the lines of convincing them that the New Age is good and that spiritualism is healthy and many good and benevolent spirits are wanting to make contact with us through meditation, etc. So, abductions need to be more friendly for them to accomplish this goal of deception. And, that is precisely what you see according to evidence.
Undoubtedly, fallen angels have become the masters of deceit, and it is reasonable that a different strategy would be used for each culture -- and even for each individual. I don't think that they only think culturally. Their deceptive techniques are likely complex, and sometimes they're trying more to deceive an individual and other times the purpose may be more regional or for a whole culture.
We also have to realize that demons would not want to become obvious. Those who are materialists may easily use the cultural variations to say that the experiences originate entirely in the brain and not from a spirit world. That may also be part of their strategy. The harder it is for people to know what is going on and why, the better. That way they can use these experiences to deceive more people and in more ways and never be discovered for what they truly are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)