RSS Feed
The Problem with Atheism
(This is an edited transcript of a talk given at the Atheist Alliance conference in Washington D.C. on September 28th, 2007)
To begin, I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge just how strange it is that a meeting like this is even necessary. The year is 2007, and we have all taken time out of our busy lives, and many of us have traveled considerable distance, so that we can strategize about how best to live in a world in which most people believe in an imaginary God. America is now a nation of 300 million people, wielding more influence than any people in human history, and yet this influence is being steadily corrupted, and is surely waning, because 240 million of these people apparently believe that Jesus will return someday and orchestrate the end of the world with his magic powers.
Of course, we may well wonder whether as many people believe these things as say they do. I know that Christopher [Hitchens] and Richard [Dawkins] are rather optimistic that our opinion polls are out of register with what people actually believe in the privacy of their own minds. But there is no question that most of our neighbors reliably profess that they believe these things, and such professions themselves have had a disastrous affect on our political discourse, on our public policy, on the teaching of science, and on our reputation in the world. And even if only a third or a quarter of our neighbors believe what most profess, it seems to me that we still have a problem worth worrying about.
Now, it is not often that I find myself in a room full of people who are more or less guaranteed to agree with me on the subject of religion. In thinking about what I could say to you all tonight, it seemed to me that I have a choice between throwing red meat to the lions of atheism or moving the conversation into areas where we actually might not agree. I’ve decided, at some risk to your mood, to take the second approach and to say a few things that might prove controversial in this context.
Given the absence of evidence for God, and the stupidity and suffering that still thrives under the mantle of religion, declaring oneself an “atheist” would seem the only appropriate response. And it is the stance that many of us have proudly and publicly adopted. Tonight, I’d like to try to make the case, that our use of this label is a mistake—and a mistake of some consequence.
My concern with the use of the term “atheism” is both philosophical and strategic. I’m speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn’t even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.
If the comparison with astrology seems too facile, consider the problem of racism. Racism was about as intractable a social problem as we have ever had in this country. We are talking about deeply held convictions. I’m sure you have all seen the photos of lynchings in the first half of the 20th century—where seemingly whole towns in the South, thousands of men, women and children—bankers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, church elders, newspaper editors, policemen, even the occasional Senator and Congressman—turned out as though for a carnival to watch some young man or woman be tortured to death and then strung up on a tree or lamppost for all to see.
Seeing the pictures of these people in their Sunday best, having arranged themselves for a postcard photo under a dangling, and lacerated, and often partially cremated person, is one thing, but realize that these genteel people, who were otherwise quite normal, we must presume—though unfailing religious—often took souvenirs of the body home to show their friends—teeth, ears, fingers, knee caps, internal organs—and sometimes displayed them at their places of business.
Of course, I’m not saying that racism is no longer a problem in this country, but anyone who thinks that the problem is as bad as it ever was has simply forgotten, or has never learned, how bad, in fact, it was.
So, we can now ask, how have people of good will and common sense gone about combating racism? There was a civil rights movement, of course. The KKK was gradually battered to the fringes of society. There have been important and, I think, irrevocable changes in the way we talk about race—our major newspapers no longer publish flagrantly racist articles and editorials as they did less than a century ago—but, ask yourself, how many people have had to identify themselves as “non-racists” to participate in this process? Is there a “non-racist alliance” somewhere for me to join?
Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.
Another problem is that in accepting a label, particularly the label of “atheist,” it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture. We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms. I’m not saying that meetings like this aren’t important. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think it was important. But I am saying that as a matter of philosophy we are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet.
While it is an honor to find myself continually assailed with Dan [Dennett], Richard [Dawkins], and Christopher [Hitchens] as though we were a single person with four heads, this whole notion of the “new atheists” or “militant atheists” has been used to keep our criticism of religion at arm’s length, and has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them. And while our books have gotten a fair amount of notice, I think this whole conversation about the conflict between faith and reason, and religion and science, has been, and will continue to be, successfully marginalized under the banner of atheism.
So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.
Now, it just so happens that religion has more than its fair share of bad ideas. And it remains the only system of thought, where the process of maintaining bad ideas in perpetual immunity from criticism is considered a sacred act. This is the act of faith. And I remain convinced that religious faith is one of the most perverse misuses of intelligence we have ever devised. So we will, inevitably, continue to criticize religious thinking. But we should not define ourselves and name ourselves in opposition to such thinking.
So what does this all mean in practical terms, apart from Margaret Downey having to change her letterhead? Well, rather than declare ourselves “atheists” in opposition to all religion, I think we should do nothing more than advocate reason and intellectual honesty—and where this advocacy causes us to collide with religion, as it inevitably will, we should observe that the points of impact are always with specific religious beliefs—not with religion in general. There is no religion in general.
The problem is that the concept of atheism imposes upon us a false burden of remaining fixated on people’s beliefs about God and remaining even-handed in our treatment of religion. But we shouldn’t be fixated, and we shouldn’t be even-handed. In fact, we should be quick to point out the differences among religions, for two reasons:
First, these differences make all religions look contingent, and therefore silly. Consider the unique features of Mormonism, which may have some relevance in the next Presidential election. Mormonism, it seems to me, is—objectively—just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas. For instance, the Mormons think Jesus is going to return to earth and administer his Thousand years of Peace, at least part of the time, from the state of Missouri. Why does this make Mormonism less likely to be true than Christianity? Because whatever probability you assign to Jesus’ coming back, you have to assign a lesser probability to his coming back and keeping a summer home in Jackson County, Missouri. If Mitt Romney wants to be the next President of the United States, he should be made to feel the burden of our incredulity. We can make common cause with our Christian brothers and sisters on this point. Just what does the man believe? The world should know. And it is almost guaranteed to be embarrassing even to most people who believe in the biblical God.
The second reason to be attentive to the differences among the world’s religions is that these differences are actually a matter of life and death. There are very few of us who lie awake at night worrying about the Amish. This is not an accident. While I have no doubt that the Amish are mistreating their children, by not educating them adequately, they are not likely to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings. But consider how we, as atheists, tend to talk about Islam. Christians often complain that atheists, and the secular world generally, balance every criticism of Muslim extremism with a mention of Christian extremism. The usual approach is to say that they have their jihadists, and we have people who kill abortion doctors. Our Christian neighbors, even the craziest of them, are right to be outraged by this pretense of even-handedness, because the truth is that Islam is quite a bit scarier and more culpable for needless human misery, than Christianity has been for a very, very long time. And the world must wake up to this fact. Muslims themselves must wake up to this fact. And they can.
You might remember that Thomas Friedman recently wrote an op-ed from Iraq, reporting that some Sunni militias are now fighting jihadists alongside American troops. When Friedman asked one Sunni militant why he was doing this, he said that he had recently watched a member of al-Qaeda decapitate an 8-year-old girl. This persuaded him that the American Crusader forces were the lesser of two evils.
Okay, so even some Sunni militants can discern the boundary between ordinary crazy Islam, and the utterly crazy, once it is drawn in the spilled blood of little girls. This is a basis for hope, of sorts. But we have to be honest—unremittingly honest—about what is on the other side of that line. This is what we and the rest of the civilized, and the semi-civilized world, are up against: utter religious lunacy and barbarism in the name of Islam—with, I’m unhappy to say, some mainstream theology to back it up.
To be even-handed when talking about the problem of Islam is to misconstrue the problem. The refrain, “all religions have their extremists,” is bullshit—and it is putting the West to sleep. All religions don’t have these extremists. Some religions have never had these extremists. And in the Muslim world, support for extremism is not extreme in the sense of being rare. A recent poll showed that about a third of young British Muslims want to live under sharia law and believe that apostates should be killed for leaving the faith. These are British Muslims. Sixty-eight percent of British Muslims feel that their neighbors who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted, and seventy-eight percent think that the Danish cartoonists should be brought to justice. These people don’t have a clue about what constitutes a civil society. Reports of this kind coming out of the Muslim communities living in the West should worry us, before anything else about religion worries us.
Atheism is too blunt an instrument to use at moments like this. It’s as though we have a landscape of human ignorance and bewilderment—with peaks and valleys and local attractors—and the concept of atheism causes us to fixate one part of this landscape, the part related to theistic religion, and then just flattens it. Because to be consistent as atheists we must oppose, or seem to oppose, all faith claims equally. This is a waste of precious time and energy, and it squanders the trust of people who would otherwise agree with us on specific issues.
I’m not at all suggesting that we leave people’s core religious beliefs, or faith itself, unscathed—I’m still the kind of person who writes articles with rather sweeping titles like “Science must destroy religion”—but it seems to me that we should never lose sight of useful and important distinctions.
Another problem with calling ourselves “atheists” is that every religious person thinks he has a knockdown argument against atheism. We’ve all heard these arguments, and we are going to keep hearing them as long as we insist upon calling ourselves “atheists. Arguments like: atheists can’t prove that God doesn’t exist; atheists are claiming to know there is no God, and this is the most arrogant claim of all. As Rick Warren put it, when he and I debated for Newsweek—a reasonable man like himself “doesn’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” The idea that the universe could arise without a creator is, on his account, the most extravagant faith claim of all.
Of course, as an argument for the truth of any specific religious doctrine, this is a travesty. And we all know what to do in this situation: We have Russell’s teapot, and thousands of dead gods, and now a flying spaghetti monster, the nonexistence of which also cannot be proven, and yet belief in these things is acknowledged to be ridiculous by everyone. The problem is, we have to keep having this same argument, over and over again, and the argument is being generated to a significant degree, if not entirely, over our use of the term “atheism.”
So too with the “greatest crimes of the 20th century” argument. How many times are we going to have to counter the charge that Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent the endgame of atheism? I’ve got news for you, this meme is not going away. I argued against it in The End of Faith, and it was immediately thrown back at me in reviews of the book as though I had never mentioned it. So I tackled it again in the afterword to the paperback edition of The End of Faith; but this had no effect whatsoever; so at the risk of boring everyone, I brought it up again in Letter to a Christian Nation; and Richard did the same in The God Delusion; and Christopher took a mighty swing at it in God is Not Great. I can assure you that this bogus argument will be with us for as long as people label themselves “atheists.” And it really convinces religious people. It convinces moderates and liberals. It even convinces the occasional atheist.
Why should we fall into this trap? Why should we stand obediently in the space provided, in the space carved out by the conceptual scheme of theistic religion? It’s as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it.
Instead of doing this, consider what would happen if we simply used words like “reason” and “evidence.” What is the argument against reason? It’s true that a few people will bite the bullet here and argue that reason is itself a problem, that the Enlightenment was a failed project, etc. But the truth is that there are very few people, even among religious fundamentalists, who will happily admit to being enemies of reason. In fact, fundamentalists tend to think they are champions of reason and that they have very good reasons for believing in God. Nobody wants to believe things on bad evidence. The desire to know what is actually going on in world is very difficult to argue with. In so far as we represent that desire, we become difficult to argue with. And this desire is not reducible to an interest group. It’s not a club or an affiliation, and I think trying to make it one diminishes its power.
The last problem with atheism I’d like to talk about relates to the some of the experiences that lie at the core of many religious traditions, though perhaps not all, and which are testified to, with greater or lesser clarity in the world’s “spiritual” and “mystical” literature.
Those of you who have read The End of Faith, know that I don’t entirely line up with Dan, Richard, and Christopher in my treatment of these things. So I think I should take a little time to discuss this. While I always use terms like “spiritual” and “mystical” in scare quotes, and take some pains to denude them of metaphysics, the email I receive from my brothers and sisters in arms suggests that many of you find my interest in these topics problematic.
First, let me describe the general phenomenon I’m referring to. Here’s what happens, in the generic case: a person, in whatever culture he finds himself, begins to notice that life is difficult. He observes that even in the best of times—no one close to him has died, he’s healthy, there are no hostile armies massing in the distance, the fridge is stocked with beer, the weather is just so—even when things are as good as they can be, he notices that at the level of his moment to moment experience, at the level of his attention, he is perpetually on the move, seeking happiness and finding only temporary relief from his search.
We’ve all noticed this. We seek pleasant sights, and sounds, and tastes, and sensations, and attitudes. We satisfy our intellectual curiosities, and our desire for friendship and romance. We become connoisseurs of art and music and film—but our pleasures are, by their very nature, fleeting. And we can do nothing more than merely reiterate them as often as we are able.
If we enjoy some great professional success, our feelings of accomplishment remain vivid and intoxicating for about an hour, or maybe a day, but then people will begin to ask us “So, what are you going to do next? Don’t you have anything else in the pipeline?” Steve Jobs releases the IPhone, and I’m sure it wasn’t twenty minutes before someone asked, “when are you going to make this thing smaller?” Notice that very few people at this juncture, no matter what they’ve accomplished, say, “I’m done. I’ve met all my goals. Now I’m just going to stay here eat ice cream until I die in front of you.”
Even when everything has gone as well as it can go, the search for happiness continues, the effort required to keep doubt and dissatisfaction and boredom at bay continues, moment to moment. If nothing else, the reality of death and the experience of losing loved ones punctures even the most gratifying and well-ordered life.
In this context, certain people have traditionally wondered whether a deeper form of well-being exists. Is there, in other words, a form of happiness that is not contingent upon our merely reiterating our pleasures and successes and avoiding our pains. Is there a form of happiness that is not dependent upon having one’s favorite food always available to be placed on one’s tongue or having all one’s friends and loved ones within arm’s reach, or having good books to read, or having something to look forward to on the weekend? Is it possible to be utterly happy before anything happens, before one’s desires get gratified, in spite of life’s inevitable difficulties, in the very midst of physical pain, old age, disease, and death?
This question, I think, lies at the periphery of everyone’s consciousness. We are all, in some sense, living our answer to it—and many of us are living as though the answer is “no.” No, there is nothing more profound that repeating one’s pleasures and avoiding one’s pains; there is nothing more profound that seeking satisfaction, both sensory and intellectual. Many of us seem think that all we can do is just keep our foot on the gas until we run out of road.
But certain people, for whatever reason, are led to suspect that there is more to human experience than this. In fact, many of them are led to suspect this by religion—by the claims of people like the Buddha or Jesus or some other celebrated religious figures. And such a person may begin to practice various disciplines of attention—often called “meditation” or “contemplation”—as a means of examining his moment to moment experience closely enough to see if a deeper basis of well-being is there to be found.
Such a person might even hole himself up in a cave, or in a monastery, for months or years at a time to facilitate this process. Why would somebody do this? Well, it amounts to a very simple experiment. Here’s the logic of it: if there is a form of psychological well-being that isn’t contingent upon merely repeating one’s pleasures, then this happiness should be available even when all the obvious sources of pleasure and satisfaction have been removed. If it exists at all, this happiness should be available to a person who has renounced all her material possessions, and declined to marry her high school sweetheart, and gone off to a cave or to some other spot that would seem profoundly uncongenial to the satisfaction of ordinary desires and aspirations.
One clue as to how daunting most people would find such a project is the fact that solitary confinement—which is essentially what we are talking about—is considered a punishment even inside a prison. Even when cooped up with homicidal maniacs and rapists, most people still prefer the company of others to spending any significant amount of time alone in a box.
And yet, for thousands of years, contemplatives have claimed to find extraordinary depths of psychological well-being while spending vast stretches of time in total isolation. It seems to me that, as rational people, whether we call ourselves “atheists” or not, we have a choice to make in how we view this whole enterprise. Either the contemplative literature is a mere catalogue of religious delusion, deliberate fraud, and psychopathology, or people have been having interesting and even normative experiences under the name of “spirituality” and “mysticism” for millennia.
Now let me just assert, on the basis of my own study and experience, that there is no question in my mind that people have improved their emotional lives, and their self-understanding, and their ethical intuitions, and have even had important insights about the nature of subjectivity itself through a variety of traditional practices like meditation.
Leaving aside all the metaphysics and mythology and mumbo jumbo, what contemplatives and mystics over the millennia claim to have discovered is that there is an alternative to merely living at the mercy of the next neurotic thought that comes careening into consciousness. There is an alternative to being continuously spellbound by the conversation we are having with ourselves.
Most us think that if a person is walking down the street talking to himself—that is, not able to censor himself in front of other people—he’s probably mentally ill. But if we talk to ourselves all day long silently—thinking, thinking, thinking, rehearsing prior conversations, thinking about what we said, what we didn’t say, what we should have said, jabbering on to ourselves about what we hope is going to happen, what just happened, what almost happened, what should have happened, what may yet happen—but we just know enough to just keep this conversation private, this is perfectly normal. This is perfectly compatible with sanity. Well, this is not what the experience of millions of contemplatives suggests.
Of course, I am by no means denying the importance of thinking. There is no question that linguistic thought is indispensable for us. It is, in large part, what makes us human. It is the fabric of almost all culture and every social relationship. Needless to say, it is the basis of all science. And it is surely responsible for much rudimentary cognition—for integrating beliefs, planning, explicit learning, moral reasoning, and many other mental capacities. Even talking to oneself out loud may occasionally serve a useful function.
From the point of view of our contemplative traditions, however—to boil them all down to a cartoon version, that ignores the rather esoteric disputes among them—our habitual identification with discursive thought, our failure moment to moment to recognize thoughts as thoughts, is a primary source of human suffering. And when a person breaks this spell, an extraordinary kind of relief is available.
But the problem with a contemplative claim of this sort is that you can’t borrow someone else’s contemplative tools to test it. The problem is that to test such a claim—indeed, to even appreciate how distracted we tend to be in the first place, we have to build our own contemplative tools. Imagine where astronomy would be if everyone had to build his own telescope before he could even begin to see if astronomy was a legitimate enterprise. It wouldn’t make the sky any less worthy of investigation, but it would make it immensely more difficult for us to establish astronomy as a science.
To judge the empirical claims of contemplatives, you have to build your own telescope. Judging their metaphysical claims is another matter: many of these can be dismissed as bad science or bad philosophy by merely thinking about them. But to judge whether certain experiences are possible—and if possible, desirable—we have to be able to use our attention in the requisite ways. We have to be able to break our identification with discursive thought, if only for a few moments. This can take a tremendous amount of work. And it is not work that our culture knows much about.
One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc.
As someone who has made his own modest efforts in this area, let me assure you, that when a person goes into solitude and trains himself in meditation for 15 or 18 hours a day, for months or years at a time, in silence, doing nothing else—not talking, not reading, not writing—just making a sustained moment to moment effort to merely observe the contents of consciousness and to not get lost in thought, he experiences things that most scientists and artists are not likely to have experienced, unless they have made precisely the same efforts at introspection. And these experiences have a lot to say about the plasticity of the human mind and about the possibilities of human happiness.
So, apart from just commending these phenomena to your attention, I’d like to point out that, as atheists, our neglect of this area of human experience puts us at a rhetorical disadvantage. Because millions of people have had these experiences, and many millions more have had glimmers of them, and we, as atheists, ignore such phenomena, almost in principle, because of their religious associations—and yet these experiences often constitute the most important and transformative moments in a person’s life. Not recognizing that such experiences are possible or important can make us appear less wise even than our craziest religious opponents.
My concern is that atheism can easily become the position of not being interested in certain possibilities in principle. I don’t know if our universe is, as JBS Haldane said, “not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose.” But I am sure that it is stranger than we, as “atheists,” tend to represent while advocating atheism. As “atheists” we give others, and even ourselves, the sense that we are well on our way toward purging the universe of mystery. As advocates of reason, we know that mystery is going to be with us for a very long time. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that mystery is ineradicable from our circumstance, because however much we know, it seems like there will always be brute facts that we cannot account for but which we must rely upon to explain everything else. This may be a problem for epistemology but it is not a problem for human life and for human solidarity. It does not rob our lives of meaning. And it is not a barrier to human happiness.
We are faced, however, with the challenge of communicating this view to others. We are faced with the monumental task of persuading a myth-infatuated world that love and curiosity are sufficient, and that we need not console or frighten ourselves or our children with Iron Age fairy tales. I don’t think there is a more important intellectual struggle to win; it has to be fought from a hundred sides, all at once, and continuously; but it seems to me that there is no reason for us to fight in well-ordered ranks, like the red coats of Atheism.
Finally, I think it’s useful to envision what victory will look like. Again, the analogy with racism seems instructive to me. What will victory against racism look like, should that happy day ever dawn? It certainly won’t be a world in which a majority of people profess that they are “nonracist.” Most likely, it will be a world in which the very concept of separate races has lost its meaning.
We will have won this war of ideas against religion when atheism is scarcely intelligible as a concept. We will simply find ourselves in a world in which people cease to praise one another for pretending to know things they do not know. This is certainly a future worth fighting for. It may be the only future compatible with our long-term survival as a species. But the only path between now and then, that I can see, is for us to be rigorously honest in the present. It seems to me that intellectual honesty is now, and will always be, deeper and more durable, and more easily spread, than “atheism.”
By
Sam Harris
|
October 2, 2007; 12:34 PM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds |
Next: McCain is Wrong
Posted by: Patrick Altena | August 6, 2008 9:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Could Science be a Religion? Could a Natural Born Humans Species on a Planet, that does not Know about the High Tech Science Human Species, of flying up in the air on a throne, and out into Space in a fiery chariot, become a religion of for Natural Born Humans?
Did this happen on New Guinea during WW2? The Natural Born Natives that did not Know about the High Tech of the USA, in the 1940s, called our pilots Gods and started a Cargo Cult for them.
Could this be how the High Tech Science Knowledge in Genesis was translated also, by Natural Born Humans that did not Know about the High Tech Science of airplanes and spaceships, and also started God religions?
An interesting article on Salon.com, 'What's wrong with Science as a religion', by Karl Giberson.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/religion_science/
"When Salon interviewed me about my new book, "Saving Darwin", I suggested that science doesn't know everything, that there might be a reality beyond science, and that religion might be about God and not merely about the human quest for a nonexistent God. These remarks got me condemned to whatever hell (PZ)Myers believes in. -
"I am incredibly impressed with the achievements of science. But I don't think science is omniscient and I am not convinced that science will ever know everything."
That is why I call GOD, the Source of the Atom and Electro-Magnetic Force Elements. I do not think Humans, even High Tech Science Humans, can ever Know the Source of the Elements, that make Life as we Know it, in the Seen and Unseen Universes.
Posted by: Dolores Lear | August 3, 2008 1:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks for the interesting and informative site. That’s definitely what I’ve been looking for.
free mobile ringtone
[url=http://elitefreehost.com/tone/index.html] free t mobile ringtone [/url]
Posted by: Milos | July 25, 2008 12:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi! Guys how you manage to make such perfect sites? Good fellows!
free mobile ringtone free t mobile ringtone
[url=http://elitefreehost.com/tone/free-downloadable-t-mobile-ringtones.html] free logos [/url]
Posted by: Constandinos | July 25, 2008 12:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: Anonymous | July 22, 2008 7:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This article is more proof atheism is in itself a form of religion. Its view of the world is narrow, and is based on the premise that lack of evidence is evidence of lacking, which is employed using as much illation as any religion. Its existence is infested with ad hominen, which can skew any truth-finding effort and is not a worthy goal of any endeavor. Atheist activism ("atheism") engages in activities suspiciously similar to proselytizing and has its missionaries, endeavoring to push their ideology with as much zeal and arrogance accused of any religion (call it the Atheist Crusades). And as such, the human race will suffer the same problem-causing biases and dogmatic narrow-mindedness as has been seen with those they oppose.
It is important to mention that scientific theories should be taught in school but also with the full understanding of the concepts of the scientific method - and as long as teachers’ influence over students are not abused to push their viewpoints. Religion is already absent from public curriculums and thus should anti-religion. Along with the theories should also be taught the biased course a theory has taken. With this said, it should be noted that the United States of America preserves the freedom to believe as one would wish, and if a local population of people happen to vote a theory of science out of a public curriculum to your dismay, you have the freedom to live somewhere else.
As a scientist, I deplore how science is used as a tool to push or attack an ideology that has nothing to do with the science it employed to begin with. I understand the reaction to centuries of pushing how the world is by people with religious power to do so (is atheism any different today)? Those pontificators err greatly in that they miss the point, which is that by its nature, theism holds that religious views should come entirely from deity. Most were never claimed as such and many a view formed that shouldn’t have (the same thing is occurring in atheism). So most of the dubious beliefs not claimed to be officially sanctioned by deity that has drawn opposition for centuries, came solely from anthropological conceptualizing. This is hardly a reason to bash the entire notion deity (AKA intelligent life with influence over the physical) might exist beyond this realm of existence. Such a notion is indeed as much a narrow-minded and biased view as any religious one opposed.
The main point is this… if consideration is given to the unproven notion that everything of order, including life, came from pure chance and thus God doesn’t exist, or that perhaps extraterrestrial intelligence were somehow involved in such order (even extradimensional beings), then why not consider the notion of the existence of a God or Gods? The latter is of course in the language of religion, which has a different purpose than science. If this language was translated to the language of science, would atheists breathe a little easier?
Posted by: Grabe, MD | July 21, 2008 11:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
jdkigbmo ztwmqufp tlnmvczq adihxp dhgmfu ndkqzvty bthgdcojm
Posted by: ynox nctwdxa | July 13, 2008 3:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
blonde 16 lesbians sample style.
[url=http://www.freeblondeteens.hit.bg]free blonde teens[/url]
[url=http://www.freeblondeteens.hit.bg]free blonde teens[/url]
Posted by: Brytney | July 9, 2008 4:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I find it troubling that people who don't believe in the nonsense of religion, have no real exposure to the public. We have no PR, so to speak, and those people who might join with us, don't read about us or see us or hear us. We have no representation on religious pages of the newspapers as an alternative to religion. We don't sponsor schools or hospitals. We have no charities. We don't minister at births and deaths. We don't councel the troubled or visit prisons. We have no "perks" like "afterlives in heaven" or "72 virgins" or "blessings from god". We offer nothing to supplant the things offered by religion. Why would a Christian give up his seat in heaven to accept atheism? We have no real legitimacy as far as the public is concerned. The delusional people point at us and say we are crzy. People are deluged with religios information and speakers but we, who should be educating the public to come out of the dark ages of belief in miracles and afterlives and messiahs, have no voice. Nowhere in people's daily lives, do we appear, to offer rational-thinking people an alternative to the delusions of religion., except on the internet. What, if anything, can we do? The blacks got their time in the spotlight and now the gays, but the atheists need the same thing- a war; a fight for public recognition and acceptance; a war of rational versus irrational thinking; an exposure of the bible for what it is; a book of fairy tales. All I can think of is that the time is getting closer for real confrontation, but, like the messiah, I think it will never come.
Posted by: George Lippman | July 6, 2008 4:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
[url=http://www.teentitansbandai.hit.bg]teen titans bandai[/url]
[url=http://www.teentitansbandai.hit.bg]teen titans bandai[/url]
communicator teen titans bandai is game
[url=http://www.teentitansbandai.hit.bg]teen titans bandai[/url]
Posted by: Michael | July 3, 2008 10:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sam Harris is one of the best intellect of all times. His comment on understanding our mind is well presented. Only through personal contemplation and understanding our mind where we can truly recognize the true nature of things as it is. More power to you SAM.
Posted by: Carlos Cheng, PE | July 2, 2008 12:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
pokemon manga download
pokemons but i don't know pokemon manga
[url=http://www.pokemonmangadownload.hit.bg]pokemon manga download[/url]
Posted by: Brytney | June 30, 2008 3:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Regarding the scientific explanation of the earth’s creation, there are ways to know it by natural speculation or by a historical record. A cording to natural speculation, one meditates observe and conjectures about the creation. In a historical record, we go by what it says.
Consider this:
The earth does not have six thousand years it has billion of years.
It was created, then judge, became void, the big bang happened, finally restored.
We believe that the entire Bible is the Word of God, and every word of it is inspired. A very grievous thought in the mind of godly ones is that men have despised and opposed His Word. God's children are grieved because men do not respect God's statutes. Among the sixty-six books of the Bible, Genesis has been subjected to the most doubt. Those who oppose the Bible often try to overturn God's clear revelation with geological ages and prehistoric discoveries. The evidences in geology prove to them that the earth has been in existence for tens of thousands of years, and that the record of six thousand years of history in the Bible is untrustworthy.
In the name of science, the world hurls its attacks on the book of Genesis. Many dear brothers in the Lord are not that scholarly (the author being one of them) and become lost in this storm. Although geology does not form part of our meditation, for the benefit of all, we will study the Word of God by the Lord's grace at the commencement of our meditation and will consider how perfect is His Word, so that we can silently behold His beauty in His presence.
Genesis is God's revelation, while geology is man's invention. God knows the whole truth. As such, His revelation can never be wrong. Man only sees in part. As such, his conjectures are not accurate. When we place Genesis side by side with geology, we should follow Genesis and not geology, because it is God who stands behind Genesis. If there are any basic differences between Genesis and geology, the error must be on the side of geology. The authority of the Bible is undisputed. Everything that is contrary to the Bible is wrong. Thank God our Father that He has given us such a complete revelation. If there are any incompatibilities between God and man, we would rather give up man and accept God.
Men often laugh at the ridiculous stories of creation circulated among the Chinese, the Babylonians, and other countries. No scientist has to spend much effort to refute these myths. The reason is that there is not much weight to these traditions. This is why they have not attracted much attention.
But men's attitudes towards the Bible are very different. The very fact that they have tried their best to resist the Bible proves the power of the Bible. They cannot treat the Bible the same as the traditions of the nations because they have recognized the extraordinary nature of the Bible.
All those who have read Genesis 1 cannot fail to marvel at the beauty of its record. How ordinary it is, yet how marvelous! It is a plain record and contains no theory or arguments to prove its authenticity. The writer of the book was not bound by the book, but was transcendent above its record. The true author of the book is the One who is far above the universe it describes—God. Had the recorder of the book, Moses, written this book according to his own learning and ideas, his thoroughly Egyptian-trained intellect would surely have been influenced by the Egyptian theory of creation. Yet who can detect a trace of Egyptian philosophy in Genesis 1? Why is this? It is because God was the One who inspired Moses to do the writing. Otherwise, how could Moses know that the land came out of the water? This is, of course, a fact established by geology and is a modern discovery.
Had Moses not been inspired, it would be difficult to explain this fact. As to the development of life on earth, although the Bible does not support the theory of evolution, it does not altogether reject the fact that there was a progression.
First, there were aquatic organisms, and then there was man. Would not a scientist marvel at the record of Moses? The omniscient God must surely have given inspiration according to facts; those who were inspired by such an omniscient God cannot be in error. Yet the Bible is not a textbook of science. Its goal is to guide sinners "unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).
Nevertheless, the Bible does not contain any scientific errors. If there are any contradictions with science, it is either a misinterpretation of the Scripture or a misjudgment of science. Many of the definitive statements by geologists in the past have been overturned! Many of their assertions have been proven wrong.
Cummings said, "Geology has made mistakes in the past. It is possible that it will be wrong again. The hasty and loud assertions by those who are not too familiar with its theories may be proved inaccurate again."Since the Bible is not a science textbook, it only mentions the "what’s" of creation without mentioning the "whys." Science is interested in the "whys." Of course, in many cases it is successful in doing this. But one must not overturn the "what’s" with theoretical "whys" just because man's finite mental research has come into conflict with God's record. What God said are the facts because He knows everything. If the world wants to study what God has said and why He has said it, it must not hold on to its own ideas while rejecting God's authority. It is a good thing to have wisdom, but there is one kind of foolishness which is more blessed.
Among Christians, there is a popular theory that Genesis 1:1 is a kind of general introduction, and that the work of the six days is actually an expansion of the record of verse 1. In other words, they consider the words "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" as merely a subject of Genesis 1. They say that in the first sentence the writer wrote down a summary of what he was about to say, after which he went at length into an explanation of this sentence.
After telling us that God created the heaven and the earth, Genesis goes on to tell us the condition of the earth after creation, and how He created light, air, the land, the plants, and the animals day by day. This popular theory considers Genesis 1 as a record of the creation of the universe, and that the universe was created out of desolation.
If we study the first chapter of the Bible carefully, we will see the error in this supposition! This erroneous supposition, not the Bible itself, has put the church into a great debate with the world. This supposition gives men the excuse to say that Genesis is incompatible with geology and casts doubts in the minds of many young people concerning the accuracy of the Bible. In Hebrew, the original language, there are altogether seven words in Genesis 1:1. Each of these seven words has independent meanings. God's inspired record does not say that at the beginning of time, God molded the heavens and the earth into being, or that He made them out of some elements. It says that the heavens and the earth were created. How clear is the word created!
To create is to make something out of nothing; it is to create something out of void. It is not to make something out of some existing elements. The word create is Bara in the original language. "In the beginning , God Bara the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). The word Bara is used three other times in Genesis 1 and 2:
(1) "And God created (Bara) great whales, and every living creature that moved, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good" (v. 21).
(2) "So God created (Bara) man in his own image" (v. 27a).
(3) "In it he had rested from all his work which God created (Bara) and made" (2:3b).
To create is to make something out of nothing. The great whales and every living creature do not have an outward body only, but a life-element within them. The only way that this can be done is through God's direct work of creation. This is why it says that God created the great whales and every living creature (1:21). There is a very good reason for the Bible to say "created" instead of "made."
In the same way, although man's body was made from the dust, 2:7 tells us that man has a spirit and a soul which cannot be made from any physical material. This is why the Bible says that God created man according to His own image. In Genesis 2 there are three words for the act of creation:
(1) Bara, which means to make something out of nothing. We have covered this briefly.
(2) Asah, which means to make. This word is very different from the first. Bara is to make something out of nothing, while asah means that there is some raw material first, and then something is made out of the raw material. A carpenter can make a chair, but he cannot create a chair. In describing most of the work during the six days, this word is used.
(3) Yatsar, which means to complete, has the sense of a potter molding a piece of clay into shape. This is the word used for formed in 2:7. Isaiah 43:7 shows the relationship between these three words: "Everyone who is called by my name, whom I have created, formed, and even made for my glory." To create is to make something out of nothing, to form is to mold into shape, and to make is to work from some material.
Genesis 1:1 uses the word Bara. The phrase in the beginning is a further proof that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. There is no need of any hypothesis. Since God has said this, man should believe. If man wants to fathom God's work in the beginning with his finite mind, he will only expose his own presumptuousness! "By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God" (Heb. 11:3).
Furthermore, who can answer God's challenge to Job concerning the creation? God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning. The heaven does not refer to the heaven that surrounds our earth but rather to the heaven of the stars. This "heaven" has not changed since the creation of the universe. Although the heaven has never changed, the condition on earth has changed! If we want to understand Genesis 1, it is very important to differentiate between the earth in verse 1 and the earth in verse 2. The condition of the earth in verse 2 was not the condition at the beginning of God's creation.
In the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth, His creation was perfect. God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Therefore, the condition of void and confusion in verse 2 was not the original condition at the time of God's creation. How could God possibly have created an earth that was void and without form?
We can answer this question by reading one verse alone.
"For thus says Jehovah, Who created the heavens. He is the God . Who formed the earth and made it; He established it; He did not create it waste, But He formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah and there is no one else" (Isa. 45:18).
How clear this is! The word waste in this verse is the same as the word without form in Genesis 1:2, which thou are in Hebrew. Unfortunately, translators of the Bible have not used the same word in both places. "He did not create it [the earth] without form." Why then does Genesis 1:2 say that "the earth was without form"? It is easy to find the solution.
In Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth that God created then was not void and without form. Later there was a cataclysm, and the earth became without form and void. Verse 3 does not refer to the original creation, but to a restored earth.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and then during the six days, He re-created the world. The world in Genesis 1:1 was the original world, while the world in 1:3 is our present world.
Genesis 1:2 describes the transitional condition of desolation after the initial world and prior to our present world. We do not base our explanation on Isaiah 45:18 alone (even though Isaiah 45:18 alone is sufficient as a proof). We have other evidences. According to Bible scholars, in Hebrew the first word in verse 2 is a conjunction, which should be translated as and. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void."The "and," according to Hebrew usage—as well as that of most other languages—proves that the first verse is not a compendium of what follows, but a statement of the first event in the record.For if it were a mere summary, the second verse would be the actual commencement of the history, and certainly would not begin with a copulative. A good illustration of this may be found in the fifth chapter of Genesis (Gen. 5:1). There the opening words, "This is the book of the generations of Adam," are a compendium of the chapter, and, consequently, the next sentence begins without a copulative. — G.H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, 1942, reprinted 1975, p. 31.“Therefore, what follows in Genesis 1:2 is not a detailed explanation of the record in 1:1, but an independent, distinct, and later event”. The creation of the heavens and the earth is one thing, and the earth becoming without form and void is another. Later we will explain why the earth became void and without form. About a hundred years ago, Dr. Chalmers pointed out that the word was in "the earth was without form" should be translated became. Dr. I.M. Haldeman, G.H. Pember, and others also pointed out that this word is the same as the word became used in Genesis 19:26. "And she became a pillar of salt." If the same word is translated became in 19:26, why should it not be translated the same way here? Even the word became in 2:7 is the same word as in 1:2. Therefore, it is not hypothetical to translate 1:2 the following way: "And the earth became without form." When God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was not without form and void. Later it became such. Let us read a few more verses:"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea,and all that in them is" (Exo. 20:11).
Comparing these two verses, we can see that the world in Genesis 1:1 was very different from the world in 1:3. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, but in the six days, God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them. There is a vast difference between create and make. One is to have something from nothing, while the other is to improve the things that are in existence. The world can make, but it cannot create, while God can both create and make. This is why Genesis says that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Later because of the cataclysm, the earth became desolate, and "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exo. 20:11).Second Peter 3:5 through 7 says the same thing. The heavens and the earth in verse 5 are the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1. Verse 6 speaks of the world flooded with water, which is the earth that was without form and void and that was under the water in Genesis 1:2. "The heavens and earth now" in verse 7 is the restored world after Genesis 1:3. There is a clear difference between God's work in the six days and His work of creation at the beginning. The more we read Genesis 1, the more we will see that our explanation above is the proper one.
In the first day light was called into being. Before the first day there was already land, but it was "without form and void" and was buried in the deep under the water. On the third day God did not create the land; He merely caused it to appear.
F.W. Grant said that the work of the six days merely put a new order to the earth; it did not create something out of nothing. The earth was there already. The Bible never says that the earth was created during the six days. Grant also said, "At which point did the first day begin? Some may think that it began from desolation. Yet this is not true. The `evening' on the first day indicates light had been there since the beginning. `The darkness he called Night,' yet the `evening' is a darkness that is already under the control of light."In the first day God did not create the light; He merely caused the light to appear on the darkened earth.
In the same way in the second day, He did not create the heaven. The heaven there was not the heavens, but the atmospheric "heaven" which surrounds the earth. This was not created then. Where then did the atmosphere come from? Our answer is that it was created in verse 1. Therefore, there was no need now to create; there was only the need to restore."In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." There is no detailed discussion here. We do not know if the primordial world was created in an instant or became what it was through an endless period of time. We do not know if it was completed in a few thousand years or millions of years. We do not know the shape and the size of it. All that we know is that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." We do not know how many years there were between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1. We do not know how long ago God created the heaven and the earth, and we do not know how many years after the creation of the primordial world did the desolation of verse 2 occur. But we believe that there was a long period of time between the perfect creation at the beginning and the later change into something that was without form and void."In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." How much later was it that "the earth became without form and void"? We cannot tell. But we know one thing: there was a long gap between the two expressions. This long gap between the first two verses of Genesis covers the whole prehistoric period.
But from verse 3 until now there are less than six thousand years. Since we have proved that there is a big gap between the first two verses of the Bible, all the years which geology demands to exist and all the geological periods associated with these years can fall within this period. We do not know how much time passed on the earth and how many changes occurred on the earth's surfaces and in the atmosphere before there was the condition of void and formlessness; the Bible does not say anything about it.
But we can say for sure that the Bible never says that our earth is only six thousand years old. The Bible only testifies that there are six thousand years of human history. If the Bible has not said something, science can conjecture all it wants. But science cannot form conjectures on what the Bible has already said. After we understand the first two verses of the Bible, we can be assured that there is no contradiction between the Bible and geology. All the attacks by geology on the Bible are beating the air.
How wonderful is the Word God has written! We are not saying this to please science. God's revelation never wavers before man. We do not give up the Bible's authority in order to accommodate man's inventions. If there are any contradictions between the Bible and science, (and we would expect there to be some, because fleshly man is always at enmity with God), we have no intention to reconcile and annul these differences. The above assertion was not proposed after some geological discoveries, in an effort to reconcile the Bible with science.
There were men in the ancient church who spoke about this. At that time, geology was not yet in existence! When men like St. Augustus interpreted Genesis, the world did not yet have the term geology! A Christian does not trust in human wisdom, but in God's Word. We need nothing other than the sure rock of the Bible. As long as we have the "it is written" (Matt. 4:6) in the Scripture, everything is solved.
Unfortunately, many apologetics have forgotten their ground; they change the words of the Scripture to accommodate man's teaching. An example is given by A.W. Pink, who noted that after the translation of a certain Assyrian tablet, the apologetics enthusiastically reported that much of the Old Testament history was verified! This turns things upside down! Does the Word of God need verification? If the record on the Assyrian tablet coincides with that of the Bible, it only shows that the Assyrian tablets have no historical error. If they do not agree, it merely proves that the tablets are in error. Worldly men and vain scientists will of course scorn at our logic. But this only goes to demonstrate God's Word which says, "But a soul’s man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he is not able to know them because they are discerned spiritually" (1 Cor. 2:14).
We must never lower ourselves to appease men. It seems like a good idea to change the Bible to suit man's taste, but doing so changes the true nature of the Bible. How wonderful is Genesis 1! It devotes only one verse to the description of the first creation! It uses only one verse to describe the desolation of the world! This is far less than the thirty or so verses that describe the restoration of the world! Who can come up with a composition that matches the record of Genesis 1?
The subject is difficult, yet the explanation is clear; the facts span a long time, yet the description is simple. It does not talk about science, yet it is scientifically accurate. Who except God can compose such writing? The reason God did not say more than this is that He only intended to show man His own relationship with man. J.N. Darby said: This revelation from God is not a history by Him of all that He has done, but what has been given to man for his profit, the truth as to what he has to say to. Its object is to communicate to man all that regards his own relationship with God...But historically the revelation is partial. It communicates what is for the conscience and spiritual affections of man...Thus no mention is made of any heavenly beings...Thus also, regards this earth, except the fact of its creation, nothing is said of it beyond what relates to the present form of it. — The Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, reprinted 1970, p. 9.
Indeed, God's revelation is not given to satisfy human curiosity, but to manifest His Godhead, the world's sinfulness, the way of salvation, and the coming glory and judgments. The present worldly knowledge is indeed dangerous. Unless God bestows grace on man, man would boast in himself and use the knowledge he acquires as a basis to oppose God. How difficult it is for an intellectual person to humble himself! Man can search for knowledge as much as he wants. But God will not supplement this with His revelation. This is why He does not say much in Genesis 1. Our present need is not more science, but deeper spiritual fellowship. Only this will reap real fruit in eternity. We have to praise God the Father because He is full of love! He not only created us, but re-created us, and made us a new creation in the Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus! How sweet is this name! God has given us His Son. What a marvelous grace this is!
THE ORIGINAL WORLD AND AFTERWORDS DESOLATIONIn the beginning God created the heavens and the earth perfect. Later, after an unknown period of time, the earth which was originally good became waste and empty, without any life whatsoever. God then rose up to recreate the world; He restored the desolate world in six days. Now we will consider why the world became desolate. How could God allow the work of His hands to be destroyed? Why did such a catastrophe come upon the once beautiful earth? There is probably no other reason besides sin. The question we are considering has no perfectly clear explanation in the Bible.
Nevertheless, we can find many shimmering lights in the Word of God which will enlighten us concerning this question and which will enable us to have a little more understanding concerning the former world and the cause of its desolation. Only the Word of God can guide us and our thoughts.
The understanding of His Word, regardless of the question being discussed, always brings us edification. The greatest vanity is the reasoning’s in man's mind which do not rest on the foundation of God's Word. Although in reading Genesis 3 we cannot find Satan's name, we all know that the serpent was Satan's vessel and perhaps was even the embodiment of the devil. Revelation 12:9 say, "And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth."
Genesis 1 gives no record of the creation of Satan. Where did he come from? This is a problem. Furthermore, we can see many evil spirits in both the Old and New Testaments; we meet them even more frequently in the Gospels. Where did they come from? We also do not see the creation of angels in the six days of work in Genesis 1. Where, then, did the angels who are frequently mentioned in the Bible come from? These questions are all related to our subject.
Since the creation of the angels and the other supernatural beings is not recorded in Genesis 1, which covers the work of God during six days, we know that they were not created during that time. Since they were not created within these six days, when were they created?
The only explanation is that they were creatures of the former world—the original, perfect world. As the fossil remains clearly show, not only were disease and death—inseparable companions of sin—then prevalent among the living creatures of the earth, but even ferocity and slaughter.
And the fact proves that these remains have nothing to do with our world; since the Bible declares that all things made by God during the Six Days were very good, and that no evil was in them till Adam sinned...Since, then, the fossil remains are those of creatures anterior to Adam, and yet show evident tokens of disease, death, and mutual destruction, they must have belonged to another world and have a sin-stained history of their own, a history which ended in the ruin of themselves and their habitation. — G. H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, 1942, reprinted 1975, pp. 34-35.
By reading Jeremiah 4:23-26, we see the reason why the earth became waste and emptiness. Verse 26 says that it was due to "His [Jehovah's] burning anger." Why was the Lord so angry? It was probably because of the sin of the creatures at that time.
Isaiah 24:1 says that "Jehovah now makes the earth desolate." Why would the Lord destroy the earth of His original creation? Judging from the history of our own world, we can answer that it was probably because of the sin of the earth's inhabitants which forced God to judge them. We have said before that when we read Genesis, we do not see the origin of Satan. As we look into the cause of earth's desolation in the beginning, our mind will naturally think "an enemy has done this" (Matt. 13:28).
Other than attributing the cause to Satan, it seems that we cannot find any other clues in the Bible. We will study a portion of the Bible which seems to tell us the origin of God's enemy and thereby we may know the condition of the former world and the cause of its becoming desolate. Let us now read Ezekiel 28:1-19. These nineteen verses are divided into two sections: (1) verses 1-10 concern the prophet's warning to the prince of Tyrus, and (2) verses 11-19 concern the prophet's lamentations upon the king of Tyrus. The first section, a word to the prince of Tyrus, is easy to understand. He was exalted with pride, considered himself God, and thought that he was wiser than Daniel. Due to his progress in commerce, he became puffed up. Therefore God punished him, causing him to be slain and destroyed by the terrible of the nations. Soon after this prophecy, Nebuchadnezzar of the Chaldeans came and destroyed Tyre. Josephus believed that the prince of Tyrus was Ithobalus, who was called Ithobaal II in the history of the Phoenicians. Since we know that this prophecy has already been fulfilled, it is not difficult for us to interpret verses 1 through 10. But when we read on from verses 11 through 19, we find many places that we do not understand. Since this portion of the Word is very much related to the subject which we are studying now, we quote the text in full:
Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou seals up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou was created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covered; and I have set thee so: thou was upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou was perfect in thy ways from the day that thou was created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty; thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more (Ezek. 28:11-19).
This section is indeed hard to understand, for it contains many expressions which cannot be applied to any mortal man.
If the "king of Tyrus" were only a mortal man, how could we explain the things in verses 11 through 15? How could the king of Tyrus have been in the Garden of Eden or upon the holy mountain of God? How could he have been the anointed cherub that covered the ark? None of the things mentioned here had been the experience of the king of Tyros’. We cannot explain this section simply by spiritualizing it. It is unfair if we spiritualize the interpretation of a section when we encounter difficulties in it. I believe that the first section (vv. 1-10) addressed to the prince of Tyros’ was a word spoken to King Ithobalus II, and the second section (vv. 11-19), the lamentation upon the king of Tyros’, denotes the coming Antichrist. Verse 2 of this chapter speaks of Tyro "in the midst of the seas." By reading Daniel 11:41-45, we know that when the coming Antichrist will be in Palestine, perhaps he will dwell at Tyro. That is why he was called the king of Tyro here. Moreover, Antichrist is Satan incarnate; therefore, numerous expressions in this section refer to Satan himself.
Mr. Darby said, "Verses 11-19, while continuing to speak of Tyro, go, I think, much farther, and disclose, though darkly, the fall and the ways of Satan, become through our sin the prince and god of this world." Dr. A. C. Gaebelein also said that the king of Tyro is a type of the last great sinner (Antichrist), that behind this evil king, we see another power that is Satan; Satan was the power behind the king of Tyros’ then, and he still is the god of this age now, who rules the nations of this world. If we have studied the Scriptures carefully, we will realize that the justification for merging Satan and Antichrist in this passage into one being is not contrary to the general teachings of the Scriptures. We know that, although human beings have their own will, their walk is either directed by God's operating (Phil. 2:13) or by the operating of the evil spirits (Eph. 2:2). Human beings are never totally free. Ordinarily, human beings are under the control of the evil spirits. Sometimes, in important matters, Satan himself, in addition to the working of evil spirits, will also participate in the work. Hence, we see him personally coming to tempt Christ in the wilderness. Later, in trying to hinder Christ from going to the cross, he personally used Peter. After that, in attempting to destroy Christ, he entered into Judas. Eventually, on the world stage he will be united to Antichrist. Scripture says that the works of Antichrist are "according to Satan's operation" (2 Thess. 2:9); it is Satan who "gave him his power and his throne and great authority" (Rev. 13:2). Since Antichrist is the incarnated devil, the Holy Spirit speaks of him together with Satan in this passage. In these few verses, the superhuman aspects all refer to Satan himself, and the remainder to Antichrist. Since our purpose is not to study the question of Antichrist, but to know the creatures of the former world and the cause of its desolation, we shall put aside the verses in this portion concerning the Antichrist and concentrate on Satan, who is related to our subject.
Now let us consider the words that refer to Satan. Ezekiel 28:12 says that Satan (Note: "Satan" is the name used after he had sinned; he was called the "son of the dawn" and also "Daystar" or "Lucifer" (Isa. 14:12) before his fall. "Satan," which means "adversary," is his name after the fall. For the sake of convenience, we shall call him Satan in the following paragraphs.) "Sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." This depicts his condition before he had sinned. He was superior to all the other angels. Phrases like "sealest up the sum," "full of," and "perfect" reveal that he was the greatest of all the creation. God had put him above all the creation. Being "full of wisdom" probably refers to his understanding of God's will; if this is true, he might have had the office of a prophet already.
The first part of Ezekiel 28:13 says, "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering." When we read Genesis 3, we indeed see Satan there. However, he was not being covered by "every precious stone"; he was tempting Adam and Eve. Hence, the two gardens of Eden are not of the same time. In Adam's Garden of Eden, Satan had fallen, whereas here, it clearly depicts the situation before his fall. Hence, the garden of Eden here must be earlier than the one at Adam's time. If so, then it must not have belonged to the present world but to the previous one. This Garden of Eden, like the coming New Jerusalem, had many precious stones, such as sardius, beryl, etc. The Garden of Eden where Adam lived was not like this. The Bible focuses only on the trees and does not say anything concerning their being covered with precious stones. Hence, the Garden of Eden here must be different from that of Adam and is much earlier. His being covered with the precious stones reminds us of the precious stones on the priest in Exodus. He probably had been appointed by God to be a priest. The latter half of the verse says, "The workmanship of thy tablets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee." In the Bible musical instruments are used by kings. We see how David played the harp for king Saul. When the king of Babylon was destroyed, the sound of his lutes were said to be brought down to Sheol (Isa. 14:11). And when the king of Babylon was pleased, various musical instruments were played (Dan. 3). Satan was a king at that time and these musical instruments were given to him by God. The first half of Ezekiel 28:14 says that he is "the anointed cherub that covered." Anointed indicates that he is consecrated. The work of the cherubim is to lead men to worship the Lord (Rev. 4:9-10; 5:11-14). Therefore, his work in the beginning was also to lead the creatures at that time in the worship of God. This also refers to his priesthood. The latter part of verse 14 says that he was "upon the holy mountain of God" and had "walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire." The holy mountain of God probably is the place where God's glory is manifested. As the priest of God, he would, of course, stand before Him to minister. What does it mean to walk "up and down in the midst of the stones of fire"? Ezekiel 1:26 reveals that the position of the cherubim is below the throne. Now when Moses took seventy of the elders of Israel up the mountain of Sinai, "they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness...And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount" (Exo. 24:10, 17). The paved work of sapphire stone in the appearance of devouring fire probably was "the stones of fire." This indicates that Satan enjoyed a very high place, right below the throne of God, and was very intimate with God. Verse 15 says that he was perfect in his ways from the day that he was created, but that later God found iniquity in him. All of God's creation was perfect; God is not the author of sin. Iniquity was initiated by the archangel who sinned. He was created and given a free will by God just as we were. Unfortunately God's created angel abused his freedom! And how many people are still following his footsteps! The first part of verse 16 says that by the multitude of his merchandise they have filled his midst with violence, and he has sinned. We may refer this word solely to Antichrist. During the end time commerce will be very prosperous (Rev. 18). Many sinful things will be brought in because of this.
This can be proven by history.Nevertheless; the same clause may be applied to Satan.
Mr. Pember points out that "the word translated `merchandise' may also...signify `detraction' or `slander'; and we know that the very name `Devil' means `the slanderer,' or `malignant accuser'" (Earth's Earliest Ages, p. 52).
Thus, we can find out the meaning here. We see how Satan accused Job and tried to destroy him with insidious acts. Also in Revelation 12:10 we read, "Now has come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ, for the accuser of our brothers has been cast down, who accuses them before our God day and night." The casting down here probably corresponds to the casting of Satan out of the mountain of God in Ezekiel. The reason for the casting out in Ezekiel and in Revelation is one and the same, that is, accusation (or slander). Perhaps what was recorded in Ezekiel was the conviction of Satan by God and what was written in Revelation was the sending of Michael by God for the execution of that conviction. Then why would God still allow Satan to remain in the heavens? The reasons seem to be:
(1) the time of God has not yet come, and
(2) His own children need the furnace to purge away the dross still in them. Ezekiel 28:17 reveals the cause of Satan's fall. His heart was lifted up because of his beauty, and his wisdom was corrupted by reason of his brightness. The king of Babylon as described in Isaiah 14:12-14 bears much resemblance to this verse. Many servants of God believe that the Holy Spirit is not only pointing out the king of Babylon, but in a deeper sense, the cause of the fall of Satan who was behind the king of Babylon. In my view, the record in Ezekiel reveals the cause of his pride, while in Isaiah it shows the manner in which he exhibited his pride. It is probable that after comparing himself with God's other creatures, his heart was lifted up. In the end he tried to exalt himself to be equal with God and thus suffered God's judgment.
"How you have fallen from heaven, O Daystar, son of the dawn! ...But you, you said in your heart: I will ascend to heaven; / above the stars of God I will exalt my throne. And I will sit upon the mount of assembly On the sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High" (Isa. 14:12-14).
Since he was so proud, God punished him. His authority in the heavens was removed and abolished by God. The remaining part of the prophecy in Ezekiel is not relevant to our subject, and we shall stop here. From the prophecy contained in this passage in Ezekiel, if our interpretation is correct, we can see how God created Satan the fairest and wisest of all His creatures in the former world and made him their leader. God placed him in the garden of Eden, which was long before the Eden of Adam. The things in the former garden, if not altogether different from those of the latter garden, were at least more numerous than the latter. They resemble the future New Jerusalem. He was a prophet there, teaching all the inhabitants of the earth with his wisdom to know how to serve God. He was also there as the priest of God, directing them in the worship and praises of God. He was also the king among the creatures, having been placed in a position that was above all the creation. He must have been in such a condition for a lengthy period of time (v. 15), but because of his sin, he became the greatest enemy of God.
So far we have covered the origin of Satan. We shall now proceed to cover Satan's angels and demons, which are under him, and to investigate how they fell and how this affected the earth, causing it to become waste and void.
From the New Testament we see that under the hand of Satan there are two living beings:
(1) angels and
(2) demons. Let us first look at the angels. Matthew 25:41 speaks of "the devil and his angels." Revelation 12:4 says that the dragon's "tail drags away the third part of the stars of heaven, and he cast them to the earth." The stars denote the angels (Rev. 1:20). Therefore 12:9 says, "And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan,...he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him." These angels were probably the ones established by God in the beginning to assist Satan to rule the world. They were "the congregation of the mighty" and "the gods" in Psalm 82 (cf. John 10:35). When Satan fell, they either conspired or sympathized with him. Therefore, they fell together with him and became today's "rulers," "authorities," "world-rulers of this darkness," "the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenliest" (Eph. 6:12). Note that the numbers are plural. These angels are not disembodied demons; they have ethereal bodies. This is why the Lord promises that the children of resurrection will be like the angels in the heaven. Satan has another class of subjects, the evil spirits. Demons and the evil spirits (or filthy spirits) are the same. We can tell this by checking with the translation of the Mandarin Bible. In Matthew 8:16, it firstly mentions the demons, then the spirits. But the Bible translators, seeing that the Holy Spirit used the words "demon" and "spirit" interchangeably, translated both into "demons." In Luke 10:17 the word "demons" is in the original language, but in verse 20 the word "demons" should be "spirits." In these two verses of the Bible we see the Lord Jesus acknowledged the "demons" and the "spirits" to be the same and thus the Chinese Bible translator again translated both as "demons." Matthew 17:18 speaks of the Lord casting out a demon, yet Mark calls this demon an unclean spirit and dumb spirit (Mark 9:25). Demons and spirits are the same. These demons, or spirits, probably were the race who lived in the former world. They helped Satan in his sinning; or, perhaps after Satan sinned, they followed him rather than forsaking him and obeying God. Therefore, they were cut off by God and their bodies were removed from them. Hence, they became disembodied spirits. Although we cannot find any clear evidence in the Bible to confirm this theory, we can find some clues. In Matthew 12 we see the situation of a demon when he left the human body. He became helpless and wandered about. Besides the human body, he could not find another resting place. Therefore, he eventually returned to his original place, the human body. If they were not disembodied spirits, why did they have to enter into man's body? As we read Luke 8, we see how the legion of demons was unwilling to leave the human body. When they had no way to remain in the human body, they even entered the bodies of the swine. Presently in the world they still cling to human bodies. Even some believers are unconsciously possessed by them. They are different from Satan and his angels who do not like to enter human bodies. Satan and his angels still have a spiritual body, but the demons do not. Their character and liking seem to prove that they are the disembodied spirits. Since they are disembodied spirits, where were they when they were disembodied? We know that the spirits of all the dead are in Hades. So, where do these spirits come from? They must have come from the former world. While they were alive, their habitation was probably the former world where Satan exercised his rule. In the Bible we can find another clue that tells us that there were inhabitants in the pre-Adamic world. Isaiah 45:18 shows that the world created by God in the beginning was not waste and empty. Since this verse speaks of the original world, one expression suggests to us the existence of mankind in the previous world.
It says, "He is the God who formed the earth... He did not create it waste." This clearly refers to the original creation. Following this it says, "He formed it to be inhabited." This seems to clearly tell that the earth then was inhabited by some race. As we read the Bible further, we find clues which indicate that there is a detention place for the demons now. The legion of demons in Gadara must have known this. They were in great fear and begged the Lord that He would not "order them to depart into the abyss," (Luke 8:31) because they would be tormented there (Matt. 8:29).
Mr. Pember says that this "abyss" in the original language is abussos; and that "in some passages, such as the ninth chapter of the Apocalypse, this term is evidently applied to a fiery hollow in the centre of the earth: but it is also used for the depths of the sea, a meaning which accords well with its derivation" (Earth's Earliest Ages, p. 60). In the future Satan will be detained in a bottomless pit in the center of the earth. This is revealed in the book of Revelation. The demons are also detained in an abyss now, yet some of them still have freedom. We must wait until God's appointed time comes for them to be completely shut inside. This abyss is probably different from the one in the heart of the earth; it is in the sea. Furthermore, at the final judgment (Rev. 20:11-15) when all the prisoners will have been thrown into the lake of fire, there will be no more sea in the new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21:1). However, there may be only one abyss that is divided into two parts. There are other clues concerning the sea being the place of detention for demons. In the Septuagint Bible, the word "deep" in Genesis 1:2 is the same as "abyss" here. We have said that these demons are probably created races that lived in the first world. This corresponds to what we read in Genesis 1:2 because they originally lived on the earth. After sinning, their bodies were destroyed by God; their habitation was judged by God and became without form and void. The whole earth was covered by water and was characterized as "the deep." It follows then that the spirits of the races at that time were in this "deep"! Finally, on the third day when God restored the earth, He commanded the earth to come out from the water and called the gathering of the waters the sea. This earth was prepared for mankind in the new world. Where then have the former demons gone? We can spontaneously answer that they went into the sea. As we read Revelation 20:13, we often do not understand why the sea will give up the dead which are in it. It is understandable to say that death and Hades will deliver up the dead which are in them, but why will the sea give up the dead who are in it? The common interpretation is that the sea surrenders the bodies of those who are drowned. If so, then the earth should also give up its dead because there are more bodies buried in the earth than in the sea. Yet the earth does not give up its dead. Therefore, the sea will give up the spirits of the imprisoned ones and not the bodies of the dead. Men's spirits are in death and Hades; the Bible does not say that the spirits of man are kept in the sea. Then whose spirits will the sea give up? It will give up those who are from the other world, that is, the former world. The sequence here indicates this. "The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them." Those who lived in the former world died first. Therefore, they will be the first beings to be given up; then, we who are of this world will follow after because every man will be judged in his own order. Thus far we have seen the probable origin of Satan, his angels, and the demons. As to how man lived on the former earth, this is something beyond our knowledge. However, we can see some hints in the Bible.
Many Bible scholars, Dr. Scofield being one of them, believe that Jeremiah 4:23-26 refers to the condition of Genesis 1:2, in which the earth was without form and void. Although the context of this passage is the desolation of Judah, these few verses of the Scripture have a notably broader view, as if God caused the prophet to view the desolation of the earth in the beginning. If our belief is accurate, then we know that in the former world there was "the fruitful land" and "its cities" (v. 26). The inhabitants then dwelt in cities and some took up farming as an occupation. When they were deceived by Satan, the burning anger of Jehovah came upon them (v. 26) and the earth became "waste and emptiness" (v. 23).From these biblical clues we see the original situation of the earth, the races who dwelt on the earth, the paradise, and the princes, etc. If we are not mistaken in our meditation, we can draw a conclusion concerning the first world and the cause of its desolation as follows: In the beginning of "time" (as opposed to eternity) God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was not waste (Isa. 45:18) but very beautiful and perfect. On this earth there were inhabitants and the number of the inhabitants was great. Before God created the earth and human beings, He had created the angels (Job 38:6-7). He assigned Satan, whom He created, as the leader to be above all the angels. Satan, the most beautiful and wisest of all, the prime of all God's creation, dwelt in the Garden of Eden. God made him the ruler of the world; therefore, he was called "the ruler of the world" (John 14:30).
Many angels were under his rule, and these angels shared in ruling with him. Then, because of his position and honor, he became proud. Due to pride, he rebelled and lifted himself up to be equal with God. He was not satisfied with being a creature, but desired to be the Creator. Therefore, he slandered God before the people and accused the people before God. God found out his iniquity and condemned him. When the time comes, he will be cast to the earth. One third of the angels (Rev. 12) followed him in rebellion and, therefore, became the angels of the devil. God has prepared hell for them (Matt. 25:41), and when the time comes, Satan will be cast into it. In the former world, the inhabitants of the earth, being under Satan and his angels' rule, were also deceived and filled up with sins. (We can readily understand this when we consider our world situation today.)
Therefore, God's anger was fierce, and He completely destroyed the earth and all the races therein and locked up many spirits in the abyss in the sea. These evil spirits, angels, and Satan himself formed the kingdom of darkness. We do not know how long this period lasted. Later, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters again, and the Triune God began His restoration work on the world. After His restoration of the world, He created Adam and his wife and asked them to guard it, so that there would be man on the earth to cooperate with Him in heaven to stop Satan's power. Perhaps God used Adam to test Satan to see whether he would repent. However, he came to tempt Adam; therefore, God cursed Satan. Because Adam fell, he could not bring the world which was under Satan's rule back to God. On the contrary, the world Adam received from God's hand was given anew to Satan. Since angels and mankind had failed, God came in the person of the Son to be a man, the last Adam. The Lord Jesus became God's prophet, priest, and king. When He was on this earth, He was God's prophet without blemish. When He was about to die, He was able to say, "The ruler of the world is coming, and in me he has nothing" (John 14:30). At His death all who are in Adam were crucified in Him. He was able to include all of the old Adamic creation in His crucifixion because He is God, and He is able to continue on as the new man. His human living had nothing to do with Satan. Through His death and resurrection, He regained the world lost by the first Adam. Every sinner, who is destined to die in the old Adam, can return to God and be saved if he rejects the first Adam through the death of the last Adam and joins himself to Christ in life. This is the meaning of believing in the death of the Lord Jesus. Therefore, whoever believes in the Lord Jesus becomes an enemy of the devil. In everything he attacks us, and in everything we resist him, his angels, and the demons. This is God's purpose in saving man, and this is a real spiritual warfare. Satan was judged once on the "holy mountain of God," and he was judged again on the hill of Golgotha. He has been convicted, yet his judgment has not yet been executed. When the time comes he will be cast down from heaven and when the Son of God returns to this earth, he will be cast into the abyss. After one thousand years he will forever suffer in the lake of fire. Now the Lord Jesus holds the authority which Satan had abused, and He will hold it until all traces of rebellion disappear. He has brought His own blood into the Holy of Holies and has cleansed the heavens; He is now a Priest of God. When He returns, it will be the time of the restoration of all things. He will be a King, ruling this world from heaven with all the overcoming saints, in the same way that Satan ruled with his angels in the former time. At that time He will teach the inhabitants of this earth to know God's will and to worship God, in the same way that Satan did in the former days. The situation in the millennium will be like the situation in the world before Satan sinned. Christ will restore all things to the condition in the "beginning" in order to accomplish God's original purpose. After this He will burn up the whole world, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth in which the righteous will dwell. Therefore, as God's children we ought to have a deeper enmity for the devil. For thousands of years God's only purpose has been for man to be joined with Him to destroy Satan's authority. Our God is a law-abiding God. He will not take back by force the world which was lost through man. Therefore, He sent His Son to become a man in order to regain what man had lost. We, men who have been saved, ought to cooperate with the unique "Man," the Lord Jesus. In our life, in our work, in our environment, in our dwelling, and in the world, we should resist the works of the devil. Our resistance is in firmness of faith (1 Pet. 5:9), and not by means of fleshly weapons (2 Cor. 10:4), which is the way of social reformers who are being utilized by the demons. Satan was wise and beautiful! But because of his pride, he ended up in complete ruin. It is dangerous for frail mortals to esteem themselves wise and beautiful! Beware, lest being lifted up with pride, you fall into the judgment of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6). Being self-exalted with pride is not a blessing to man; wisdom rests only with those who fear the most high God Jehovah.
THE EARTH RESTORED THE RECOVERY OF THE EARTH IN SIX DAYS
We have seen that in the beginning God created a perfect world. Later, because of the sins committed by Satan and those who dwelt on the earth, they and the earth were judged by God, and the earth became without form and void. Now we will see God's work of restoring the earth. In the book of Job, Job mentions the failure of Satan's rebellion in order to show that it is foolish to dispute with God. "He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered? which removed the mountains, and they know not; which overturned them in his anger; which shakes’ the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble; which commanded the sun, and it rises not; and sealed up the stars" (Job 9:4-7). When did God do this? When did He shake the mountains and the earth, and alter the position of the celestial bodies due to man's stubbornness towards Him? Since the time of Adam, such an act of God in the world has not been seen. This passage must be a description of God's judgment on Satan and on the earth under his dominion when he rebelled. At that time God shook the earth and overturned the mountains. The calamity came so swiftly that the mountains were overturned unnoticed. In addition to the earth, the positions of the celestial bodies were also affected. Because of God's judgment, the sun disappeared completely and the stars did not shine. The world was plunged into darkness. There was no sun and no heat was produced. Consequently, this led to the glacial epoch on this earth. Then, after a long period of time, possibly due to internal heat at the earth's core (Rev. 9:2), the ice gradually melted. However, the sun had not yet appeared and the stars were still "sealed up." When the Spirit of God began to move, there was the deep, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Job not only mentions God's judgment, but also His work of restoration. He says, "Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, / and treadeth upon the high peaks of the sea; / which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, / and wonders without number" (Job 9:8-10, Heb.). The phrase "spread knows? / Or who hath stretched the line upon it? / Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? / Or who laid the corner stone thereof; / when the morning stars sang together." No matter which earth is referred to here, whether the original created earth or the restored earth on the third day, one thing is definite: before the earth was formed, the stars already existed. As the earth was being formed, morning stars were there singing together, praising the work of God. In Genesis God was only rearranging the stars that were there before. After He had gathered the light into the sun and had made it the great light, He restored the stars and made them appear in the sky to meet the needs of the earth. The Holy Spirit inspired Moses to describe God's work with human words because the Bible is written for man. He did not speak of the positions and functions of the sun, moon, and stars, but only mentioned their relationship to the earth and man. Although seasons, days, and years have to do with other creatures, the use of the celestial bodies "for signs" is specifically for man, since no one besides man is able to observe the motions of the celestial bodies in order to make signs. God only speaks about the positions and functions of the sun, moon, and stars according to man's viewpoint. He does not mention other matters. In man's eyes the sun is the greatest light, the moon is the second, and the stars are still smaller lights. Is it not wonderful that God has prepared such an immense universe for men as small as we? On the fifth day, after the dry land and the celestial bodies had been restored, God prepared to create living organisms to inhabit the earth. "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (v. 20). God's commandment expressed God's purpose. "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moved, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind" (v. 21). God created these things out of nothing. We do not know what materials God used to make fish and aquatic life. As for the birds, 2:19 tells us that they are made out of the ground. Science tells us that living organisms first existed in the water, then on the ground. Aquatic organisms are the most primitive species among all the animals. Even today, the ocean is still home to the majority of the living creatures. Birds, on the other hand, are the most primitive species of all warm-blooded animals. We can see how closely science resembles the description in the Bible. Although science proves these words, faith believes without the help of science! On the sixth day God went on to create the beasts, the cattle, and the creeping things. Finally, He created man in His own image. We will discuss the creation of man in more detail in later messages. Here we will deal only briefly with the subject. Chapter one covers the creation of man in a brief way to show us man's position among the creatures, while chapter two describes the origin of man in detail to show us man's relationship with God. We should notice that man was "created" by God (v. 27). Man did not evolve from a lower class of animal. The word "creation," as we have mentioned, means the making of something out of nothing. It is a special work of God and not a natural process of evolution. The Bible does not give credence to the theory of evolution, which will forever be a vain idea! On the third day God ordered each type of vegetation, the trees, grass, and vegetables, to yield seed after its kind. Grass cannot change into a tree, neither can one tree change into another kind of tree. On the fifth day aquatic life and birds were all after their kinds. On the sixth day the beasts, cattle, and creeping things were also after their kind. Every creature is after its kind. The Bible does not tell us how these kinds were classified, yet the words "after his kind" is sufficient proof that in those days every creature was of a different kind. Since God has said that everything was "after his kind," the boundary of each kind was set by God. There is absolutely no possibility for one kind to evolve into another kind. Plants cannot change into animals; even one kind of plant cannot change into another kind of plant, neither can one kind of animal change into another kind of animal. We Christians believe in the Word of God. Anything beyond "thus saith the Lord," we will not believe. How much less should we listen to a theory that is contradictory to the Word of God? The Word of God is sufficient to solve all the problems. The world may be scornful of our logic, but we are satisfied with God's Word. Pitiful mortals do not believe in our God. As a result, they drift aimlessly and devise theories for themselves on which to base their faith! They think that it is too incredible for God to bring something out of nothing into being, and to make man out of the dust of the earth. To us, however, for a tiny embryo of one kind of animal to undergo the numerous processes of evolution to become a monkey, and then after many more steps of evolution, to change from a monkey into a man, is something that is far more incredible. Just for a monkey to evolve into a man is incredible. It is much more incredible than God creating man! I warn my readers not to believe such end-times nonsense. Not only should we not believe such talk; we should not even listen to it. We should not read magazines or books that contain these kinds of theories. We thank God that His words are clear and easy to understand. He said, each "after his kind," and all around us we see all animals and plants behaving according to this word. Formerly, evolutionists said that man's ancestors were some sort of animal many thousands of years ago. Now they tell us that after many more thousands of years, our descendents will be formless animals without fingers or toes. They are talking things that belong to many thousands of years ago or many thousands of years in the future, things which we will never see or be able to hold up for questioning! Our Bible is a book of the present. At present, all creatures multiply after their own kind. The Bible does not make irresponsible statements! As noted by many previous writers, "Elohim," one of the names for God in the original Scriptures, is plural in number. However, in Genesis 1:26 the verb used after God is singular in number. It seems incompatible to have a plural noun with a singular verb. However, this indicates that God is three-in-one and one-in-three. Since there is more than one person in the Godhead, the noun does not have a singular designation. Neither are there two persons. Hence, the designation is not dual. Rather, there are three persons. Hence, there is the plural designation "Elohim." Although there are three, there are not three Gods. For this reason, the verb is not plural, but singular. This reveals that God is triune. Although the Bible does not explicitly state that God is triune, we can find many proofs and indications of this fact in the Bible. There is no doubt that the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed a great doctrine in the Bible. Furthermore, the word "us" in verse 26 indicates the plural number in the divine Persons, while the verb "make" indicates the oneness of God's purpose. In chapter one, the words "God said" are used thirty-one times. What God said was God's Word. When we read the Gospel of John 1, we see that all things were made by the Word of God. Genesis 1 alludes to the work of the Lord Jesus in creation. In this way, the Triune God works together in creation. We have "God," "God said," and "the Spirit of God." The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all here. Before God created man, He paused and had a discussion within the Godhead, saying, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion." As we meditate on this discussion, we realize that God was very serious about this matter. This seems to indicate that our previous exposition is correct. Satan, as well as the previous inhabitants of the earth had already failed. God restored the earth and heaven, and made them fit for human habitation. All the living creatures were ready. The Godhead seemed to be taking a pause to talk among them, "Behold, We are going to create man now!" This is the spirit of this passage. Here God tells us His purpose in creating human beings, "let them have dominion." Satan had been defeated. Under God's judgment, he could no longer have dominion over the world. Although in reality he was still free, the judgment on him had already been pronounced. The earth restored by God has nothing to do with Satan; everything on this earth is the expression of a new order. Although Satan still retains his title of "the ruler of this world," the man created by God is endowed with a free will; he has autonomous power. God established man, apart from the authority of Satan, to have dominion over the newly created living creatures and plants, and over all the earth. If man had been able to carefully guard his God-given rights and power, Satan would have held "the ruler of this world" as an empty title only. God wants to annul the authority of Satan since He has already been judged. For God to have ejected Satan would have been quite easy; but for reasons unknown to us, He wants man to be His co-worker to destroy the work of the devil. Therefore, God created man and let him have dominion. This was the position Satan had once held, but lost. Unfortunately, soon afterward man failed. Man lost his right, and Satan regained his power and dominion as ruler of the world. This we will see when we come to chapter three, but let us be clear about one thing: all of God's plan and work in this world has one goal, the elimination of the power of Satan. The Lord Jesus called him the enemy (Matt. 13). Therefore, we believers, as God's chosen people, should constantly bear this purpose of God in mind—the destroying of the power of the devil. In everything we do, we should not ask whether something is good or bad, but how it would benefit God and destroy Satan. If our efforts cannot affect the kingdom of darkness and cause the devil to suffer loss, then we should not do it. In all our work for God, we should not look for superficial results. Rather, we should consider who will profit and who will suffer in the spiritual realm. This is a spiritual warfare and not a struggling in flesh and blood. One day, our judgment before the judgment seat will be measured by this standard. Whether our work will remain or be consumed by fire depends on how much it helps to accomplish God's purpose. The best way to fight against the power of darkness is, on the one hand, to resist in our spirit the work of Satan, not agreeing with his winning, and on the other hand, to use prayer as our weapon by asking God to destroy Satan's work and scheme. At the same time, we should obey God's will practically. Each time we obey God's will, Satan suffers defeat. Man was made firstly in God's image, and secondly after His likeness. This does not refer only to man's physical body. "In God's image" means that man represents God on earth. "After His likeness" means that man is after God's kind; in other words, His race (Acts 17:28). Morally and intellectually, there are similarities between God and man, so that man can know God and fellowship with Him. Unfortunately, man has sinned and lost God's image and likeness. Now man's ignorance in matters concerning God is beyond imagination. Therefore, unless a man is born again from above, he does not know how to fellowship with God. Paul told us that man is "God's image and glory" (1 Cor. 11:7); God made man to express His own glory. God wants to display His glory to Satan in the air. However, the first man failed. Yet the second Man did not fail. He was the express image of God's person (Heb. 1:3, KJV), and He was able to fully express God."And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,...and every tree, in the which is the fruit...to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast...every fowl...and to every thing that creepeth...I have given every green herb for meat" (Gen. 1:29-30). In the world before sin came, there was no eating of flesh. Eating flesh is a thing of the sinful world. In the coming new heaven and the new earth there is no mention of any eating of flesh; the only thing worthy of eating will be the fruit of the tree of life. In the present order of things, God's opinion is that "every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified through the word of God and intercession" (1 Tim. 4:4-5). In a world that is full of sin, if we try to abstain from meat (4:3), we are denying the fact that the present world is under a curse!"God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). God did not make anything that was not good. Bad things came as a result of sin; they were not creations of God. In this sinful world, we should not murmur against God, because in Him there is no evil, and what He made is all good. God has treated us mortals graciously. He first created various forms of vegetation on the third day and then prepared them as food for the animals. After this He created the fowls on the fourth day, land animals on the fifth day, and man on the sixth day. He set up the whole environment in a good order before He put man in it. If we truly believe this fact, what a consolation it will be to us! God always makes preparations for His creatures this way. For the growth of grass, He first prepared the land; for the support of animal life, He first prepared vegetable life. But because we often fail to see this fact with our naked eyes, we become worried. Blessed are those who have faith to see God and His work! Nothing will shake such a heart! The first three verses of chapter two should belong to chapter one. On the seventh day God did not do any work. He rested on this day. One thing we should notice is that this rest is God's rest and not man's. The Bible tells us that this was God's Sabbath. God worked for six days and then He rested. This rest is not a physical rest, because with God there is no fatigue. "Do you not know, / Or have you not heard, / That the eternal God, Jehovah, / The Creator of the ends of the earth, / Does not faint and does not become weary" (Isa. 40:28). What is the meaning of this rest? This is not a physical but a spiritual rest. God was satisfied. He saw everything that He had made was very good, and He was satisfied. Every careful reader of the Bible will see that this is the meaning of God's rest. God did not ordain the Sabbath here for man to observe. Man had not done any work, so he did not need any rest. It was only after Adam fell that he had to work (Gen. 3:19). At this point, Adam had not sinned. Therefore he did not need to rest on the seventh day. For this reason, we should not consider this Sabbath as something of Jewish law (which we do not need to keep), but rather as the Sabbath in God's creation. We should remember that God did not give the Sabbath to man as just a day to keep. For the period of two thousand five hundred years after that day, there is not one mention of the word "Sabbath" in the Scripture! We should notice one more thing. After the first six days, the phrase "and the evening and the morning'' is included. However, after the seventh day, the Sabbath, there is not such a phrase! After God worked, He rested in the eternal brightness of the night less day! This day of rest is a type of the coming day of rest for God's people mentioned in Hebrews 3 and 4, when the co-workers of God will rest for eternity with Him in a night less day. When we think of that day, does our heart not rejoice?eth out the heavens" indicates God's work on the second day. God divided the waters with a firmament in their midst and this firmament was called Heaven. So the "high peaks of the sea" probably indicates the waters above the firmament. The phrase "maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades" indicates God's work on the fourth day. The word "maketh" does not mean creates but fashions. God did not create stars at this time, but He fashioned anew the existing stars. In Job 9:7 it says, "Sealed up the stars." This shows that the stars already existed. Genesis 1:16 says, "He made the stars also." This was a restoration to their condition before they were sealed. Having read Job's word, we are more convinced that our exposition is correct. In Genesis God began His work of restoration. He called out for light because the face of the deep was dark, and this light divided the light from the darkness. There was light before, and now light came back. Some mockers have said, "How could there be light without the sun?" However, science no longer laughs at this kind of record in the Bible, and recently science has proven Moses' words to be correct. The record here is "non-science"; it is not "anti-science." The book of God is not intended as a science textbook, yet the word of God is not erroneous according to science. Man now understands that besides the sun there are other sources of light. Light is an energy from an unknown source that produces vibrations of the ether around the universe. This vibration is beyond human imagination. (Of course, the light that we now see relates to the burning of the sun as well as other sources of light.) But scientists cannot tell us about the sources of this energy. Concerning this point, they are fully in darkness; but faith knows. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light" (Gen. 1:3). It is most pitiful that while there is God, who is the source of all positive things, and in whom everyone should believe, people still reject Him and prefer to grope in the dark, considering it unscientific and superstitious to believe in God's Word! But we are so happy that we not only have God, but that He is also our Father. It does not say that light was created or brought into being by God on the first day. Light has not existed for merely six thousand years. Before light came, darkness was confined to one place, the face of the deep (i.e., the whole earth). Darkness was confined to this one assigned place. When light appeared, it appeared in the same dark place, the whole earth. When God said, "Let there be light" (v. 3), the whole universe was not in darkness. God was merely commanding the light to appear on the surface of this earth. In Moses' time, science did not know of other sources of light besides the sun (such as the Aurora Borealis, the northern lights). But Moses still recorded that God called out the light first, and then made the sun to appear. If this was not a revelation of the Holy Spirit, how could he have made such a statement? Thank God that He is not limited by the ignorance of people. The more the scientists understand the natural laws established by God, the more they realize that the Word of God is worthy of all acceptance."And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (v. 5). God did not create the light here because it had existed for a long time; He just called out the light. When did the first day start? Someone said it was from the time when the earth was "without form and void" (v. 2); however, that is not the meaning here. "And the evening and the morning were the first day" (v. 5). "Morning" was the time when the light of the first day appeared. If there were no light before the first day, then the "evening" mentioned here does not make sense. The "evening" came first, and then "the morning." If the morning indicates the time when the daylight first appeared, and if there was no light before the first day, then the evening would indicate the darkness before the light, which would be the prolonged darkness mentioned in verse 2. If that were the case, would not the first evening have been too long? If the evening of the first day was the darkness in verse 2, then the first day would have started from the darkness of the formlessness and void. But Genesis clearly does not consider the formlessness and void as the first day. Hence, before the "evening" of the first day, there was light already. However, this light was not shining on the earth. God called the darkness Night, but "the evening," being different from the night, was darkness under control of the light. For this reason, light existed before "the evening" of the first day; otherwise, how could we differentiate between the evening and the morning? Furthermore, the Bible does not say that God created light on the first day; He just commanded light to appear. Where was the light from? If it was not from the earth which was without form and void and in entire darkness, it must surely have been from the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth. This is a further proof that the world we are in now is a restored world. We should know that each of the six days is a twenty-four hour day. In the Bible a day is often used to represent a period of time, such as "the day of the Lord," etc. But the six days are not six periods. No reader without preconceived opinions would consider these as periods of time. Whenever the Bible uses "day" to stand for a period, there is no numerical indication associated with it. If there is a number before the day, it must indicate the time of one revolution of the earth. Furthermore, it clearly states "the evening and the morning were the first day" (v. 5). Combining evening and morning as the first day is an indication of a twenty-four hour day. Moreover, God later established a Sabbath, according to His own rest on the seventh day. The Sabbath in Exodus 20 is a twenty-four hour day. If the seventh day is a twenty-four hour day, then the six preceding days must also be twenty-four hour days. Again, if we consider these six days as six geological periods, then what corresponds to the "evenings" of these geological periods, and what corresponds to the "mornings" of these periods? Furthermore, if these six days correspond to six geological periods, there would have been no grass or trees on the earth before the third period, and there would have been no animal fossils on the earth before the sixth period. But this is not the case, because there is no separation between animals and plants in the geological strata below the surface of the earth. If the six days were six long periods, then Adam, who was created in the sixth period, would have had to live a long time in paradise before he could have committed sin. Moses, who wrote the book of Genesis, had no thought of using days to represent periods. We must not twist the Word of God to fit our own concept or to lessen people's attack. If we explain the Bible according to our own idea, we will be blamed by others and also put the Holy Scripture in jeopardy. With these proofs we must conclude that these six days were just six days and not six periods. Our God is almighty; one day is sufficient for Him to restore. There is no need for six periods. But since it pleased Him to restore the world in six days, we need to humbly observe God's work and praise His greatness. Why should we adapt ourselves to the opinion of unregenerate people? We know that if geology is correct, the period between verse 1 and verse 2 is long enough to produce all the geological formations of the earth. On the second day God commanded again. God put air in the firmament to divide the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. God separated the waters on the earth from the moisture of the atmosphere. Again, the scientists ought to praise this beautiful record. This is just the phenomenon of the expansion of the air, separating the water in the atmosphere from the water below; and yet the boundary is not immovable. The atmosphere above us can be filled with moisture as recorded in the Bible. This atmosphere is not a solid reservoir to reserve water in the heaven, because verse 20 mentions "fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." This open firmament is a region or sphere in which fowl could fly around."And God called the firmament Heaven" (v. 8). This "heaven" is different from the "heaven" in verse 1. "Heaven" in verse 1 denotes the whole universe with all its contents. The "heaven" in verse 8 is the "heaven" of this earth. The "heaven" in verse 1 did not deteriorate; only our earth and its celestial position were changed from its original condition due to God's judgment. God saw His works and considered that they were good on five of the six days. After the second day, the words "and God saw that it was good" were not mentioned. Does the Word of God overlook this day? No, the words which God omits are just as meaningful as the words He speaks. Every word and every phrase of the Bible is inspired by God. This omission has something to do with Satan. He is the ruler of the authority of the air (Eph. 2:2). The demons under him are the "spiritual forces of evil in the heavenliest" (Eph. 6:12). God probably saw the air as the dwelling place of Satan and his demons. That is why He did not say that it was good. Some may ask, "How could the evil spirits (Eph. 2:2) ascend to the air?" We have said that their prison was the deep sea which was the "deep" that covered the whole earth. While God was separating the waters, they probably took the chance to escape out of their prison by attaching themselves to the upper waters, and thus they migrated to the heaven where their ruler stayed. This is why we have records in the New Testament of evil spirits existing in heaven and working on earth. Although they are fugitives, God has temporarily allowed them to stay there until the time for them to be thrown into the abyss. Since the air is the headquarters of the kingdom of darkness, most of Satan's work starts from the air. Therefore, when we come together to meet or pray, we should ask God to cleanse the atmosphere with the precious blood of the Lord, in order that we may not be oppressed by Satan. On the third day, although the water was separated, there was still water covering the whole earth and there was no dry land. God commanded again, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear" (Gen. 1:9). What is spoken of here matches what we have already explained. God commanded, "Let the dry land appear," so there was land buried beneath the water for a long time which did not reappear until then. God did not say "Let the dry land come out of nothing." He simply commanded the waters to withdraw, allowing the land which was originally created by Him to reappear. This further proves that the six-day work of God was one of restoration rather than creation. Psalm 104:5-9 speaks about how God created the earth in the beginning, how He then judged the earth, and how He finally rebuked the flood (the third day's work in Genesis) to restore the earth. Jehovah “laid the foundations of the earth, / that it should not be removed for ever" (v. 5). This was God's original creation. "Thou coverers’ it with the deep as with a garment: / the waters stood above the mountains" (v. 6). This was the condition after God's judgment over the various creatures then on the earth; this was the water that covered the earth in Genesis 1:2 (compare with 1:9). "At thy rebuke they fled; / at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. / They go up by the mountains; / they go down by the valleys / unto the place which thou hast founded for them. / Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; / that they turn not again to cover the earth" (Psa. 104:7-9). This was God's work on the first half of the third day. "Rebuke" and "thunder" corresponds to God's command in Genesis 1:9. "Fled" and "hasted away" describes how the waters were "gathered together unto one place." "They go up by the mountains, / and they go down by the valleys" does not refer to the creation of mountains and valleys because the mountains were present in Genesis 1:6 already. Rather, it refers to the reappearance of the preexisting but submerged mountains and valleys, after the withdrawal of the waters. It is a description of the mountains and the valleys when "the dry land" appeared after the waters subsided. "Unto the place which thou hast founded for them./ Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; / that they turn not again to cover the earth" (Psa. 104:8-9). These few verses explicitly tell us how the waters under the heaven were gathered together into one place to let the dry land appear. Thus we firmly believe that the world we are now in is the result of God's restoration work. The earth coming out of water has also been proven by science. Geologists believe that all geological formations were formed under water. Many people are not clear about the foundations of the earth, as mentioned in Psalm 104:5. We can find out the meaning of the foundations from Genesis 1:10 which says that "God called the dry land Earth." The foundations of the earth refer to the dry lands of the earth, and not to the whole globe. On the third day God had still more work. The land had emerged out of the water, but there was no vegetation. So God came in to adorn it. On the fourth day the restoration of the dry land was complete, so God came in to restore the celestial bodies. Since He had called out the light on the first day, He now made luminaries in the firmament of the heaven and put light into them. The light of the first day had divided the day from the night (vv. 4-5). Now the luminaries also divided the days from the nights; in some respects, the "light" on the first day is similar to the "luminaries." Probably the light of the first day shone on one side of the earth for half a day and then on the other side for half a day. In this way there was day and night on the first day. On the fourth day, God made the luminaries and put the light of the first day into them. As the earth and luminaries rotate around one another, they not only divide the days from the nights, but also become "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" (v. 14).The greater light that God made was the sun. Genesis 1:16 does not say that God created the sun because the sun was created in the beginning. God was only doing a work of restoration. The sun was probably a luminary in the pre-Admit world, but after Satan's rebellion, it was also affected and lost all its light, being enveloped by darkness. In spite of this, earth was probably still rotating around it. On the fourth day when God restored the sun, He caused it to receive and emit light again and thus became a luminary once more. Scientists tell us that the moon is a dead and desolate wilderness. If that is the case, it is quite conceivable that after Satan's revolt, the sun, the moon, and the stars were all affected. After God made the two great lights, He also made the stars. We should again note that the stars were not created then, because they existed long before. Job provides evidence. In Job 38:4-7 Jehovah said, "Where waste thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? /...Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knows? / Or who hath stretched the line upon it? / Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? / or who laid the corner stone thereof; / when the morning stars sang together." No matter which earth is referred to here, whether the original created earth or the restored earth on the third day, one thing is definite: before the earth was formed, the stars already existed. As the earth was being formed, morning stars were there singing together, praising the work of God. In Genesis God was only rearranging the stars that were there before. After He had gathered the light into the sun and had made it the great light, He restored the stars and made them appear in the sky to meet the needs of the earth. The Holy Spirit inspired Moses to describe God's work with human words because the Bible is written for man. He did not speak of the positions and functions of the sun, moon, and stars, but only mentioned their relationship to the earth and man. Although seasons, days, and years have to do with other creatures, the use of the celestial bodies "for signs" is specifically for man, since no one besides man is able to observe the motions of the celestial bodies in order to make signs. God only speaks about the positions and functions of the sun, moon, and stars according to man's viewpoint. He does not mention other matters. In man's eyes the sun is the greatest light, the moon is the second, and the stars are still smaller lights. Is it not wonderful that God has prepared such an immense universe for men as small as we? On the fifth day, after the dry land and the celestial bodies had been restored, God prepared to create living organisms to inhabit the earth. "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (v. 20). God's commandment expressed God's purpose. "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moved, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind" (v. 21). God created these things out of nothing. We do not know what materials God used to make fish and aquatic life. As for the birds, 2:19 tells us that they are made out of the ground. Science tells us that living organisms first existed in the water, then on the ground. Aquatic organisms are the most primitive species among all the animals. Even today, the ocean is still home to the majority of the living creatures. Birds, on the other hand, are the most primitive species of all warm-blooded animals. We can see how closely science resembles the description in the Bible. Although science proves these words, faith believes without the help of science! On the sixth day God went on to create the beasts, the cattle, and the creeping things. Finally, He created man in His own image. We will discuss the creation of man in more detail in later messages. Here we will deal only briefly with the subject. Chapter one covers the creation of man in a brief way to show us man's position among the creatures, while chapter two describes the origin of man in detail to show us man's relationship with God. We should notice that man was "created" by God (v. 27). Man did not evolve from a lower class of animal. The word "creation," as we have mentioned, means the making of something out of nothing. It is a special work of God and not a natural process of evolution. The Bible does not give credence to the theory of evolution, which will forever be a vain idea! On the third day God ordered each type of vegetation, the trees, grass, and vegetables, to yield seed after its kind. Grass cannot change into a tree, neither can one tree change into another kind of tree. On the fifth day aquatic life and birds were all after their kinds. On the sixth day the beasts, cattle, and creeping things were also after their kind. Every creature is after its kind. The Bible does not tell us how these kinds were classified, yet the words "after his kind" is sufficient proof that in those days every creature was of a different kind. Since God has said that everything was "after his kind," the boundary of each kind was set by God. There is absolutely no possibility for one kind to evolve into another kind. Plants cannot change into animals; even one kind of plant cannot change into another kind of plant, neither can one kind of animal change into another kind of animal. We Christians believe in the Word of God. Anything beyond "thus saith the Lord," we will not believe. How much less should we listen to a theory that is contradictory to the Word of God? The Word of God is sufficient to solve all the problems. The world may be scornful of our logic, but we are satisfied with God's Word. Pitiful mortals do not believe in our God. As a result, they drift aimlessly and devise theories for themselves on which to base their faith! They think that it is too incredible for God to bring something out of nothing into being, and to make man out of the dust of the earth. To us, however, for a tiny embryo of one kind of animal to undergo the numerous processes of evolution to become a monkey, and then after many more steps of evolution, to change from a monkey into a man, is something that is far more incredible. Just for a monkey to evolve into a man is incredible. It is much more incredible than God creating man! I warn my readers not to believe such end-times nonsense. Not only should we not believe such talk; we should not even listen to it. We should not read magazines or books that contain these kinds of theories. We thank God that His words are clear and easy to understand. He said, each "after his kind," and all around us we see all animals and plants behaving according to this word. Formerly, evolutionists said that man's ancestors were some sort of animal many thousands of years ago. Now they tell us that after many more thousands of years, our descendents will be formless animals without fingers or toes. They are talking things that belong to many thousands of years ago or many thousands of years in the future, things which we will never see or be able to hold up for questioning! Our Bible is a book of the present. At present, all creatures multiply after their own kind. The Bible does not make irresponsible statements! As noted by many previous writers, "Elohim," one of the names for God in the original Scriptures, is plural in number. However, in Genesis 1:26 the verb used after God is singular in number. It seems incompatible to have a plural noun with a singular verb. However, this indicates that God is three-in-one and one-in-three. Since there is more than one person in the Godhead, the noun does not have a singular designation. Neither are there two persons. Hence, the designation is not dual. Rather, there are three persons. Hence, there is the plural designation "Elohim." Although there are three, there are not three Gods. For this reason, the verb is not plural, but singular. This reveals that God is triune. Although the Bible does not explicitly state that God is triune, we can find many proofs and indications of this fact in the Bible. There is no doubt that the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed a great doctrine in the Bible. Furthermore, the word "us" in verse 26 indicates the plural number in the divine Persons, while the verb "make" indicates the oneness of God's purpose. In chapter one, the words "God said" are used thirty-one times. What God said was God's Word. When we read the Gospel of John 1, we see that all things were made by the Word of God. Genesis 1 alludes to the work of the Lord Jesus in creation. In this way, the Triune God works together in creation. We have "God," "God said," and "the Spirit of God." The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all here. Before God created man, He paused and had a discussion within the Godhead, saying, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion." As we meditate on this discussion, we realize that God was very serious about this matter. This seems to indicate that our previous exposition is correct. Satan, as well as the previous inhabitants of the earth had already failed. God restored the earth and heaven, and made them fit for human habitation. All the living creatures were ready. The Godhead seemed to be taking a pause to talk among them, "Behold, We are going to create man now!" This is the spirit of this passage. Here God tells us His purpose in creating human beings, "let them have dominion." Satan had been defeated. Under God's judgment, he could no longer have dominion over the world. Although in reality he was still free, the judgment on him had already been pronounced. The earth restored by God has nothing to do with Satan; everything on this earth is the expression of a new order. Although Satan still retains his title of "the ruler of this world," the man created by God is endowed with a free will; he has autonomous power. God established man, apart from the authority of Satan, to have dominion over the newly created living creatures and plants, and over all the earth. If man had been able to carefully guard his God-given rights and power, Satan would have held "the ruler of this world" as an empty title only. God wants to annul the authority of Satan since He has already been judged. For God to have ejected Satan would have been quite easy; but for reasons unknown to us, He wants man to be His co-worker to destroy the work of the devil. Therefore, God created man and let him have dominion. This was the position Satan had once held, but lost. Unfortunately, soon afterward man failed. Man lost his right, and Satan regained his power and dominion as ruler of the world. This we will see when we come to chapter three, but let us be clear about one thing: all of God's plan and work in this world has one goal, the elimination of the power of Satan. The Lord Jesus called him the enemy (Matt. 13). Therefore, we believers, as God's chosen people, should constantly bear this purpose of God in mind—the destroying of the power of the devil. In everything we do, we should not ask whether something is good or bad, but how it would benefit God and destroy Satan. If our efforts cannot affect the kingdom of darkness and cause the devil to suffer loss, then we should not do it. In all our work for God, we should not look for superficial results. Rather, we should consider who will profit and who will suffer in the spiritual realm. This is a spiritual warfare and not a struggling in flesh and blood. One day, our judgment before the judgment seat will be measured by this standard. Whether our work will remain or be consumed by fire depends on how much it helps to accomplish God's purpose. The best way to fight against the power of darkness is, on the one hand, to resist in our spirit the work of Satan, not agreeing with his winning, and on the other hand, to use prayer as our weapon by asking God to destroy Satan's work and scheme. At the same time, we should obey God's will practically. Each time we obey God's will, Satan suffers defeat. Man was made firstly in God's image, and secondly after His likeness. This does not refer only to man's physical body. "In God's image" means that man represents God on earth. "After His likeness" means that man is after God's kind; in other words, His race (Acts 17:28). Morally and intellectually, there are similarities between God and man, so that man can know God and fellowship with Him. Unfortunately, man has sinned and lost God's image and likeness. Now man's ignorance in matters concerning God is beyond imagination. Therefore, unless a man is born again from above, he does not know how to fellowship with God. Paul told us that man is "God's image and glory" (1 Cor. 11:7); God made man to express His own glory. God wants to display His glory to Satan in the air. However, the first man failed. Yet the second Man did not fail. He was the express image of God's person (Heb. 1:3, KJV), and He was able to fully express God."And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,...and every tree, in the which is the fruit...to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast...every fowl...and to every thing that crept...I have given every green herb for meat" (Gen. 1:29-30). In the world before sin came, there was no eating of flesh. Eating flesh is a thing of the sinful world. In the coming new heaven and the new earth there is no mention of any eating of flesh; the only thing worthy of eating will be the fruit of the tree of life. In the present order of things, God's opinion is that "every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified through the word of God and intercession" (1 Tim. 4:4-5). In a world that is full of sin, if we try to abstain from meat (4:3), we are denying the fact that the present world is under a curse!"God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). God did not make anything that was not good. Bad things came as a result of sin; they were not creations of God. In this sinful world, we should not murmur against God, because in Him there is no evil, and what He made is all good. God has treated us mortals graciously. He first created various forms of vegetation on the third day and then prepared them as food for the animals. After this He created the fowls on the fourth day, land animals on the fifth day, and man on the sixth day. He set up the whole environment in a good order before He put man in it. If we truly believe this fact, what a consolation it will be to us! God always makes preparations for His creatures this way. For the growth of grass, He first prepared the land; for the support of animal life, He first prepared vegetable life. But because we often fail to see this fact with our naked eyes, we become worried. Blessed are those who have faith to see God and His work! Nothing will shake such a heart! The first three verses of chapter two should belong to chapter one. On the seventh day God did not do any work. He rested on this day. One thing we should notice is that this rest is God's rest and not man's. The Bible tells us that this was God's Sabbath. God worked for six days and then He rested. This rest is not a physical rest, because with God there is no fatigue. "Do you not know, / Or have you not heard, / That the eternal God, Jehovah, / The Creator of the ends of the earth, / Does not faint and does not become weary" (Isa. 40:28). What is the meaning of this rest? This is not a physical but a spiritual rest. God was satisfied. He saw everything that He had made was very good, and He was satisfied. Every careful reader of the Bible will see that this is the meaning of God's rest. God did not ordain the Sabbath here for man to observe. Man had not done any work, so he did not need any rest. It was only after Adam fell that he had to work (Gen. 3:19). At this point, Adam had not sinned. Therefore he did not need to rest on the seventh day. For this reason, we should not consider this Sabbath as something of Jewish law (which we do not need to keep), but rather as the Sabbath in God's creation. We should remember that God did not give the Sabbath to man as just a day to keep. For the period of two thousand five hundred years after that day, there is not one mention of the word "Sabbath" in the Scripture! We should notice one more thing. After the first six days, the phrase "and the evening and the morning'' is included. However, after the seventh day, the Sabbath, there is not such a phrase! After God worked, He rested in the eternal brightness of the night less day! This day of rest is a type of the coming day of rest for God's people mentioned in Hebrews 3 and 4, when the co-workers of God will rest for eternity with Him in a night less day. When we think of that day, does our heart not rejoice?
Posted by: rafael | June 24, 2008 10:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is true Sam Harris and other anti-theists in general are extremely successful in converting other anti-theists to anti-theism. Who would have imagined that the super-rational anti-theists, who mock Christians for believing in a Messiah, were waiting for a messiah themselves and would find one in Sam Harris?
Posted by: Anonymous | June 9, 2008 4:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Until I discovered Mr. Harris and his writings, I have lived my life much in the same way, that I can only imagine, the children of the sect of Warren Jeffs lived theirs under his tight reign. I've spent the majority of my life succumbing to world and immediate peer pressure regarding westernized Christianity. I tried so hard, against every fiber of my existence, to accept the illogical and ridiculous tenants of what authority figures whom I loved and trusted as a child, put every faith in, only to be betrayed at every turn by constant confusion and dishonesty to keep the "faith" dream alive. Mr. Harris' words, for me, have soothed and sorted out decades of writhing pain and obfuscated misdirection to the extent that I now have a verifiable reason to wake up in the morning and actually feel like I belong in this world. Mr. Harris has provided me a freedom and an inner solice though his logical words and arguments I strenously doubt would ever have been possible for me without them. Thank you, Mr. Harris, for your passion, inexhaustable efforts, interminable intellect and understanding of the thoughts and feelings of those who share your beliefs without a single reservation. I couldn't be more happy to be a part of your team, and look forward to contributing in the many various ways I know that I can.
Sincerely,
James Cornwell
Posted by: james cornwell | June 8, 2008 4:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Until I discovered Mr. Harris and his writings, I have lived my life much in the same way, that I can only imagine, the children of the sect of Warren Jeffs lived theirs under his tight reign. I've spent the majority of my life succumbing to world and immediate peer pressure regarding westernized Christianity. I tried so hard, against every fiber of my existence, to accept the illogical and ridiculous tenants of what authority figures whom I loved and trusted as a child, put every faith in, only to be betrayed at every turn by constant confusion and dishonesty to keep the "faith" dream alive. Mr. Harris' words, for me, have soothed and sorted out decades of writhing pain and obfuscated misdirection to the extent that I now have a verifiable reason to wake up in the morning and actually feel like I belong in this world. Mr. Harris has provided me a freedom and an inner solice though his logical words and arguments I strenously doubt would ever have been possible for me without them. Thank you, Mr. Harris, for your passion, inexhaustable efforts, interminable intellect and understanding of the thoughts and feelings of those who share your beliefs without a single reservation. I couldn't be more happy to be a part of your team, and look forward to contributing in the many various ways I know that I can.
Sincerely,
James Cornwell
Fresno, California
Posted by: james cornwell | June 8, 2008 4:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Lindajean, I could not reply to your post or to Soja's. I'm having trouble posting anything I want to say. I don't know if it is just this forum or all. However, it looks like my time on this post has come to an end.
Best wishes everyone. I have enjoyed chatting with you all. Thank you for expanding my faith!
Posted by: Peter Huff | May 23, 2008 8:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Peter said, "The foolish thing is not your gift of intelligence but how you are using it. It is a personal preference to have a disbelief. "
I "choose" not to believe the earth revolves around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the earth? That is not a choice. My rational mind knows the difference and the only “choice” I have is that I can tell my rational mind the earth does not revolve around the sun. But my mind will still accept it as true because it is.
Unless I want to live with complete cognitive dissonance, my mind does not "choose" to believe the unbelievable.
Posted by: lindajean | May 21, 2008 6:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi Lindajean,
LJ: "If God gave me the mind that he did, somewhere in my mind (he gave me) the ability to reason and critically analyze the world. Doing so has made me an unbeliever in God and I can no more “believe” in God than I can believe I am a dog or cat. There is nothing “foolish” about not being able to believe in something per se, and it is not necessarily a personal preference to have a disbelief. There is nothing I can do to change my belief that there is no God. Just as there is nothing I can do to change my belief that I am not a dog or a cat (even if I really wanted to believe I am a dog or cat.)"
I apologize for being so direct here but I don't want to mask the answer.
The foolish thing is not your gift of intelligence but how you are using it. It is a personal preference to have a disbelief. You choose not to believe because to believe questions your authority and would mean submission to His. The Word of God calls you to faith, to change your mind, to repent of your supposed autonomy and confess your helplessness before God in asking for His mercy. There is no probability claims in the Bible that God exists; He does. And yet you go against the evidence, supposing that you can actually make sense of anything, let alone morals, truth, logic, reality, existence, without God. He is the precondition for intelligence for He made all things in His infinite wisdom.
In your world view where does your authority come from and how can you know it is true? You have no absolutes in your world view, in your morals, so whose position are you going to take as the "good"? Which man/woman decides for you, for in your world view mankind is the ultimate judge. Looking at life from an atheist's point, why should I take your view or someone else's view of good when I can choose my own? No it all takes faith, and a leap on your part. You are accessible to the truth just like I am. God's word is truth (John 17:17).
LJ: "How does one believe in something when one’s mind does not believe it? If I wake up tomorrow and “decide” I am going to believe in God, how can I be sincere and honest about believing in God? I can tell others I believe in God; I can even tell myself 100 times a day I believe in God. I can go to church every Sunday and can pray every morning, noon and night to God , but how can I accept God when my mind will not believe in him? If I say that I believe in God, but I really don’t believe in God, then am I still foolish? Am I a lair? Am I a hypocrite? Just as I can say I love my brother, if I actually do not love him, how can I profess that I do? I have no control over who I love. I either love them or I do not. How can I believe in God if I do not believe in God?"
You say you do not believe in Him but your world view gives you nothing in which to make sense of the world. Where do we come from? You don't know; you have no answers. Why are morals binding and who determines good? For you it is culturally relative. But which men/women decided it was to be so in the first place and why? How do they know? How do you know something is certain? You don't even know if your philosophy about life is certain. How do you know things in nature will remain constant and uniform? How can you without absolutes? You can only say that it has been so in the past and so you believe it will be so in the future, but there are no guarantees, just personal opinion in which you base your confidence. You have no concrete basis or foundation to rest your world view on. It constantly shifts as the culture does. Where does your authority come from, science? Science has been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future, especially when it talks of origins in which no man has witnessed. The evidence has to be interpreted and it takes faith to believe what you believe.
I have an authority in Him that I do not need to look into to accept as my final authority because to look into Him, to validate Him as my final authority would then make me the authority to validate His authority thus becoming an authority over Him. His authority can only be authority if it truly is authority. You want to make yourself the final authority over God and therefore will n
Although I can share most of the reasons Sam gives fornot labelling ourselves as 'atheists' I still see some more strategic reasons to do so. Maybe (but correct me if I am wrong) this has to do with my European, and even with my Dutch background. Compared to the United States, the number of fundamentalistic Christians is very low and most of the time fundamentalist Chrisians are not very aggressive or political active. So they are silly, but not dangerous. Most Christians in the Netherlands however are, what I would like to call 'inclusivists': they tend to include everything and everybody in their own group. I am absolutely sure that the majority of Dutch Christians will consider Sam a companion, simply because he points out that the mystic experience is important for him. This is also the case for me, but I don't want to be seen as a Christian any longer, period. I don't want to be seen a connected with any form of organized religion. For the sake of clarity therefor, I will remain labelling myself an atheist, and as long as atheims isn't as widespread as anti-racism I will keep doing so, hoping (probably in vain) to keep all this christian softies from my back.