Well, the Apocalypse didn’t hit for Alabama or the world last Saturday. (9/23/2017) Despite many predictions that Vandy would upset the mighty Tide, the football world continued as normal. (For those who care, Nebraska did tend to business, but was not spectacular as they dispatched Rutgers. Who knew they played Power Five football?)
And the Feast of Trumpets did not climax with the Rapture. Ignoring Vandy, which isn’t too hard to do, (Evidently Nick Saban and the boys didn’t.) ...isn’t hard to do, the confluence of the Rapture and the upset of Alabama are totally coincident. They have nothing to do with each other, except that they would both be a surprise to the world.
The pedicters of the Vandy upset have not suffered a loss of credibility. No one really expected it to happen. Sadly, every incident of prediction of the return of Christ and/or the Rapture merely adds to the skepticism surrounding both His return and the veracity of the Bible in general. Please take no offense, but anyone who “reads secret meanings and numbers” in the Bible, is on the Kool-aid.
First, I would posit the fact that the Bible clearly teaches what we need to know. Granted, though the “mystery,” as revealed by Paul, was veiled for a time, it is clearly defined and explained in the Scripture. Just as we do not teach atomic theory to first semester chemistry students, the doctrines of the Bible are cumulative and an understanding of the “basics” is necessary to go on to more involved topics. But these are not hidden in word and letter codes that are basically undecipherable without the aid of a computer and an ingenious programer.
To propose that the most important event in history after the first coming of the Messiah is hidden from the regular believers is an insult to God and a denigration of the members of the Church. Several times Jesus, Himself, declared that He spoke openly of what He was doing and Who He was. Why would He change His approach to communication with regard to this event? In short, He would not.
Second, what is your view of God? If you see Him as someone who would specifically and explicitly state that we cannot know when He is coming, then “hide” secret messages as to that time, you have a warped view of both God and the Bible. The cult of secret knowledge was condemned by Paul a couple of times. They were called Gnostics, and Paul rebuked them and their heresies a couple of times. (1 Timothy 6:20, 21) There is no “secret knowledge” of God that is only available to a select few. And this event is too critical to be left to the “experts” to decipher. He clearly said that He was coming back. Likewise, He stated that we will not know the specific time. To even search for a hidden message seems, to me, an insult to the Lord.
God has revealed Himself in the world through creation. He has also revealed Himself in His Word for any who choose to read and study it. Finally, (Hebrews 1:1) He has revealed Himself through His Son. If we believe in Him, Jesus will reveal the Father to us. (John 14:7-9)
It is presumptuous to literally “add” to revelation by interpreting or more accurately, misinterpreting, the Scripture to claim a more in depth knowledge of God. He has already told us that there is nothing there. And now, the “guesser” has recanted his September 23 date and has revised it to October 21. I did not bother to read his reasons.
The Lord is coming. The Bible teaches that before the “Glorious appearing” there will be a removal of the Church and the Holy Spirit. He will not be completely gone, but will revert to the method of interacting that was used in the Old Testament. He came upon His prophets and others who He wanted to use. The Spirit even spoke through a donkey. Talk about “speaking in tongues.”
The removal of the Holy Spirit will pave the way for the Anti-Christ to appear and begin the final seven year attack on the Jews. He cunningly cloaks himself as the real Christ and fools a lot of people for three and a half years. But then he will reveal his true intent to destroy both the Jews and anyone who believes in Jesus. Thankfully, this time will be abbreviated but will produce the greatest turning to God in history. Revelation 7 records their presence in heaven. They will go there immediately upon their martyrdom. The number will be too large to humanly number, according to John.
At the end of the seven years, and particularly the final 42 months, Jesus will return in all of His glory and set up His kingdom on earth. “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” will be literally fulfilled. Glory. (Matthew 6:10) And guess who is coming back with Him. You guessed it. The believers who have died in Christ and those who were raptured seven years earlier. (1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17)
Is He coming back? Absolutely, positively, yes. Do we know when? Absolutely, positively, no. But it does not matter. I heard Robert Jeffers give an example of our options. Either go up when He comes, or pass through the portal of death before.
He was in the Soviet Union and was stopped at the immigration counter. He showed his documents and all that rigamarole and then they gestured that he could pass through the “gate” into the hands of US authorities. He did not dread the passage through the portal. He embraced it and even hastened unto it. Death is not fearful. It is merely a passage from this country into our home country.
And that is no Kool-aid. It is total and complete truth. Glory. “Even so, come Lord Jesus.” (Revelation 22:20)
Friday, September 29, 2017
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Forsaken
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
Matthew 27:46 records this plaintive cry from Jesus on the cross. People often ask if God really forsook or turned His back on Jesus. If that is the case, then will God forsake me as well? That is a legitimate question.
As usual, the Bible answers this question. Turn to (or click on) Isaiah 59:2
...but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear.
God has not turned, nor hidden His face. He has not stopped hearing. He never will. But our sins are responsible for the alienation and separation. Our sins are like a thick cloud or barrier that has “separated” and “hidden” His face. Our actions speak so loudly that He cannot or will not hear. Notice that our verse starts with an ellipsis. Look at the previous verse: (1)
Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither His ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
The blockage, again, is not God’s. He is ready to save and waiting to hear. Sin is the barrier that separates us. Our sin. And at the point of our discussion today, Jesus was bearing the entirety of the sins of the world. It is no wonder that His cries seemed to be ignored. In fact, they were blocked by the burden of sin provided by you and me.
Isn’t that astounding and shocking? This is one more aspect of the crucifixion where our sins exacerbated the suffering that Jesus endured for us on the cross. He went through everything for us, including the illusion of being separated from God. His was only momentary “separated,” as the instant He died, that load was forever banished into the depths of the sea. (Micah 7:19)
But this momentary separation, for an infinite God, was an infinity. Jesus did, indeed, suffer everything that was due to sinning man, including eternal separation from God. Sinning you and sinning me. He bore the entire judgment and punishment for us. How can I help but love Him?
We will never have to say, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” We will never be forsaken. He will never fail to hear us. It is finished–paid in full. Glory!
Matthew 27:46 records this plaintive cry from Jesus on the cross. People often ask if God really forsook or turned His back on Jesus. If that is the case, then will God forsake me as well? That is a legitimate question.
As usual, the Bible answers this question. Turn to (or click on) Isaiah 59:2
...but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear.
God has not turned, nor hidden His face. He has not stopped hearing. He never will. But our sins are responsible for the alienation and separation. Our sins are like a thick cloud or barrier that has “separated” and “hidden” His face. Our actions speak so loudly that He cannot or will not hear. Notice that our verse starts with an ellipsis. Look at the previous verse: (1)
Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither His ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
The blockage, again, is not God’s. He is ready to save and waiting to hear. Sin is the barrier that separates us. Our sin. And at the point of our discussion today, Jesus was bearing the entirety of the sins of the world. It is no wonder that His cries seemed to be ignored. In fact, they were blocked by the burden of sin provided by you and me.
Isn’t that astounding and shocking? This is one more aspect of the crucifixion where our sins exacerbated the suffering that Jesus endured for us on the cross. He went through everything for us, including the illusion of being separated from God. His was only momentary “separated,” as the instant He died, that load was forever banished into the depths of the sea. (Micah 7:19)
But this momentary separation, for an infinite God, was an infinity. Jesus did, indeed, suffer everything that was due to sinning man, including eternal separation from God. Sinning you and sinning me. He bore the entire judgment and punishment for us. How can I help but love Him?
We will never have to say, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” We will never be forsaken. He will never fail to hear us. It is finished–paid in full. Glory!
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Genesis: An Introduction
This will not be a rehash of creation/evolution. Although you know how much I love to debate and discuss creation. I discuss with like minded, and we “debate” with the ubiquitous “them” who believe in evolution, or no God, or both. This is what you might call shadow boxing, but it is good to perfect technique.
If you desire to debate or discuss evolution, contact me and we will carry that on outside this forum. Our desire here is to find God’s messages, embedded in this first Word from an Omnipotent God Who chose to step out of eternity and interact with mortals in the framework we call time. It must be important.
This first foray into the book will be a lightning rush through the entirety of the book to see where everything is and how it fits. Those of you who have been with me through Revelation know that we can get lost in the time line. Maybe I should amend my Revelation studies to include such an overview. In fact, I did teach Revelation one time in a one hour shot. And it was literally a shot. We started off at a sprint and grabbed the tail of a rocket to reach the end. We made it. Likewise the same overview of Genesis will help make sense of the whole story.
Paul Harvey used to teach the “Rest of the Story,” by finishing the popular stories that we all knew. The finishing, or “filling in” details fleshed out the picture and made the story a lot more understandable, and memorable. That is usually a good idea for any presentation that does not depend upon mystery for its impact. (Although Colombo made a career of telling us “who dunit” and then following the trail of proof. I will let you in on a little secret. Colombo knew who the killer was the first time he met him or her. So he, like we, knew who the killer was. He just had to accumulate the proof. But I digress.)
Genesis has five grand themes. First is the Beginning. How did everything come to be? This includes the universe, people, and sin. And, the promise of the Messiah Who would remedy the sin problem. Once that palette was in place, God could begin to tell the story. Genesis 4 begins the “How’s that working for you?*” stage that will actually continue to the end of Revelation. (*Dr Phil.) The first recorded sin is murder. Well, maybe envy (coveting) and hatred came first, but this is the first “visible” sin. And we have devolved from there. (Sorry could not resist.) This chapter also begins to “invisible” or at least stealth campaign of Satan to destroy this Godly Seed and thus frustrate God’s plan. We will follow this fascinating story from Genesis to Revelation. Buckle up, Buttercup.
Chapter 5 lists the generations of people. (2) This was given to help us trace the godly line. It also highlights the “ungldly line” just in case someone gets confused. Chapter 6 illuminates the attack by Satan to not only block the Godly line, but an attack on the entire population. God’s “response” is deliver Noah and his family from the debauchery and devilish society. This deliverance is both figurative and literal, as the rest of the population is completely excised from the earth. (Chap 6-9)
Chapter 10 begins the narrative again, only from Noah on to the next development. (3) Genesis 11 recounts Satan’s second attack on the godly line. This is the well known Tower of Babel. Though subtle, Satan was focusing on the godly line by subverting worship from God to man. They were developing their own “church” or religion as an alternative to what was delivered to Adam and Noah. As a result, God scattered the population throughout the world. (Hint: We will also marvel and wonder that Satan’s attacks always work towards completing God’s ultimate plan. They are the Old Testament illustration of Romans 8:28. “God works all things together for good....”
Out of the cloud of confusion from Babel rises Abraham. (4) (End of chapter 11 through 25/27. ) It introduces him, then follows him through his interactions with God up to the separation of Jacob from the family and Esau. In this way it continues the narrative of God’s building the family line. Isaac might be considered a separate point or a sub-point in Abraham’s story. It led to the birth of Jacob. (4b: 25-27) Satan’s attacks on Abraham were numerous and they continued on Jacob. One “bad” thing about prophesy, is that it alerts Satan to what is going to happen. He understands and believes prophesy and therefore knew that Jacob was the next step. (5) He attacked Jacob. But it also illuminates God’s care and protection in all circumstances.
Next, Jacob returns to his ancestral home, Haran, to build his family. (Chapter 28-50) But God did not want him to remain there. Satan’s attacks through Jacob’s father in law, Laban, actually “worked” to propel him back to Canaan, the promised land. Jacob’s story carries us all the way to Egypt, with a subset being the story of Joseph. (5b) (Chapters 37-50)
That’s it! We have covered Genesis in five (or seven if you count the subsets) major movements. It is actually a symphony of God’s interactions with His creation and specifically the people and family He chose to bring about salvation for the entire world. That is why Revelation is so exciting. It culminates this deliverance for the world and give us a glimpse of “what’s next.” Genesis gives us a foundation to understand the rest of the Bible’s accounts of God’s interactions with this creation and people.
What a story. I can hardly wait. Join me.
If you desire to debate or discuss evolution, contact me and we will carry that on outside this forum. Our desire here is to find God’s messages, embedded in this first Word from an Omnipotent God Who chose to step out of eternity and interact with mortals in the framework we call time. It must be important.
This first foray into the book will be a lightning rush through the entirety of the book to see where everything is and how it fits. Those of you who have been with me through Revelation know that we can get lost in the time line. Maybe I should amend my Revelation studies to include such an overview. In fact, I did teach Revelation one time in a one hour shot. And it was literally a shot. We started off at a sprint and grabbed the tail of a rocket to reach the end. We made it. Likewise the same overview of Genesis will help make sense of the whole story.
Paul Harvey used to teach the “Rest of the Story,” by finishing the popular stories that we all knew. The finishing, or “filling in” details fleshed out the picture and made the story a lot more understandable, and memorable. That is usually a good idea for any presentation that does not depend upon mystery for its impact. (Although Colombo made a career of telling us “who dunit” and then following the trail of proof. I will let you in on a little secret. Colombo knew who the killer was the first time he met him or her. So he, like we, knew who the killer was. He just had to accumulate the proof. But I digress.)
Genesis has five grand themes. First is the Beginning. How did everything come to be? This includes the universe, people, and sin. And, the promise of the Messiah Who would remedy the sin problem. Once that palette was in place, God could begin to tell the story. Genesis 4 begins the “How’s that working for you?*” stage that will actually continue to the end of Revelation. (*Dr Phil.) The first recorded sin is murder. Well, maybe envy (coveting) and hatred came first, but this is the first “visible” sin. And we have devolved from there. (Sorry could not resist.) This chapter also begins to “invisible” or at least stealth campaign of Satan to destroy this Godly Seed and thus frustrate God’s plan. We will follow this fascinating story from Genesis to Revelation. Buckle up, Buttercup.
Chapter 5 lists the generations of people. (2) This was given to help us trace the godly line. It also highlights the “ungldly line” just in case someone gets confused. Chapter 6 illuminates the attack by Satan to not only block the Godly line, but an attack on the entire population. God’s “response” is deliver Noah and his family from the debauchery and devilish society. This deliverance is both figurative and literal, as the rest of the population is completely excised from the earth. (Chap 6-9)
Chapter 10 begins the narrative again, only from Noah on to the next development. (3) Genesis 11 recounts Satan’s second attack on the godly line. This is the well known Tower of Babel. Though subtle, Satan was focusing on the godly line by subverting worship from God to man. They were developing their own “church” or religion as an alternative to what was delivered to Adam and Noah. As a result, God scattered the population throughout the world. (Hint: We will also marvel and wonder that Satan’s attacks always work towards completing God’s ultimate plan. They are the Old Testament illustration of Romans 8:28. “God works all things together for good....”
Out of the cloud of confusion from Babel rises Abraham. (4) (End of chapter 11 through 25/27. ) It introduces him, then follows him through his interactions with God up to the separation of Jacob from the family and Esau. In this way it continues the narrative of God’s building the family line. Isaac might be considered a separate point or a sub-point in Abraham’s story. It led to the birth of Jacob. (4b: 25-27) Satan’s attacks on Abraham were numerous and they continued on Jacob. One “bad” thing about prophesy, is that it alerts Satan to what is going to happen. He understands and believes prophesy and therefore knew that Jacob was the next step. (5) He attacked Jacob. But it also illuminates God’s care and protection in all circumstances.
Next, Jacob returns to his ancestral home, Haran, to build his family. (Chapter 28-50) But God did not want him to remain there. Satan’s attacks through Jacob’s father in law, Laban, actually “worked” to propel him back to Canaan, the promised land. Jacob’s story carries us all the way to Egypt, with a subset being the story of Joseph. (5b) (Chapters 37-50)
That’s it! We have covered Genesis in five (or seven if you count the subsets) major movements. It is actually a symphony of God’s interactions with His creation and specifically the people and family He chose to bring about salvation for the entire world. That is why Revelation is so exciting. It culminates this deliverance for the world and give us a glimpse of “what’s next.” Genesis gives us a foundation to understand the rest of the Bible’s accounts of God’s interactions with this creation and people.
What a story. I can hardly wait. Join me.
An Invitation
Genesis: The Book of Beginnings
How many of us have had a study of Genesis? Not creation, or Adam and Eve, or Noah, or Abraham, or Jacob and Joseph, but the full longitudinal study of the whole book. It runs for at least 2500 years and possibly more. It is a book of history, mystery, and wonder. And after we start, we will wonder why we did not do it before.
I would suggest either a Sunday afternoon or Tuesday evening. If you are interested, let me know by email or PM. If we have enough interest with too many conflicts, we can even run one both times. I have taught a Bible class that at one time was attended by two. I was one and a student was two. It turned out that he became a Naval officer and let many Bible studies where ever he was stationed. It was not a waste of time. Glory.
So if you wish to join us, we can meet as a twosome. Or even on line. Hey, I just got an idea. Facebook has this thing where you can have a video link and go where ever Facebook goes. And I think you can even video tape it and make it available anytime. I will check that out and see if it is feasible.
In the meantime, the “live” sessions are “open enrollment” right now. Let me know if you are interested. (You might be the “studio audience” for our internet outreach! But if you are camera shy, we can promise to not show you. Just in case.)
Genesis: THE Book of beginnings. It is the beginning of the world (1) and of people (2). They are followed by the beginning of God’s preparation of the world for His Son, the Messiah. (3) Number Four is the introduction of the father of God’s people to focus on the chosen line, and finally the direct forefather of the Messiah (5). These five grand themes consume 50 chapters, and, as noted before, several thousand years. We need this in our quiver as we confront a world that increasingly denies or ignores the Biblical basis of our country and of mankind in general.
I trust it will be worth your time. Contact me soon. Thank you.
I will send or post a summary of the first lesson soon.
How many of us have had a study of Genesis? Not creation, or Adam and Eve, or Noah, or Abraham, or Jacob and Joseph, but the full longitudinal study of the whole book. It runs for at least 2500 years and possibly more. It is a book of history, mystery, and wonder. And after we start, we will wonder why we did not do it before.
I would suggest either a Sunday afternoon or Tuesday evening. If you are interested, let me know by email or PM. If we have enough interest with too many conflicts, we can even run one both times. I have taught a Bible class that at one time was attended by two. I was one and a student was two. It turned out that he became a Naval officer and let many Bible studies where ever he was stationed. It was not a waste of time. Glory.
So if you wish to join us, we can meet as a twosome. Or even on line. Hey, I just got an idea. Facebook has this thing where you can have a video link and go where ever Facebook goes. And I think you can even video tape it and make it available anytime. I will check that out and see if it is feasible.
In the meantime, the “live” sessions are “open enrollment” right now. Let me know if you are interested. (You might be the “studio audience” for our internet outreach! But if you are camera shy, we can promise to not show you. Just in case.)
Genesis: THE Book of beginnings. It is the beginning of the world (1) and of people (2). They are followed by the beginning of God’s preparation of the world for His Son, the Messiah. (3) Number Four is the introduction of the father of God’s people to focus on the chosen line, and finally the direct forefather of the Messiah (5). These five grand themes consume 50 chapters, and, as noted before, several thousand years. We need this in our quiver as we confront a world that increasingly denies or ignores the Biblical basis of our country and of mankind in general.
I trust it will be worth your time. Contact me soon. Thank you.
I will send or post a summary of the first lesson soon.
Monday, September 18, 2017
Pascal's Wager
Thank you Ravi Zacherias. I have struggled with Pascal’s Wager for years. Basically it challenges an unbeliever to compare the two “end points” of belief or non-belief. A quick summary is that if an unbeliever “tries” Jesus and it turns out that it is all a fraud, what will he have lost? Either way, there is nothingness, in his calculation, so trying belief in Jesus will not “cost” him a meaningless eternity. That is what he already faces.
On the other hand, if this belief is true, and he rejects it, he will have a lost eternity. And it is worse than nothingness. It is a reasonable wager to choose the option that will not end up forever lost if it is right.
The problem is 1 Corinthians 15. Verses 29-32 are the key point:
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31 I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (Verse 29 is a rhetorical question. We can deal with that later if you wish.)
Paul rejected the idea that just “living for Jesus” now, in this present life, is enough “reward.” Note that he recounted some of his “reward.”(v. 30, 31, 32) If there is not resurrection, then his sacrifice was wasted. It was worthless. So does this refute Pascal’s equation? Read on.
Ravi explained something that I, and the other commentators I have read, have missed. It is that Pascal used the unbeliever’s own value system. In his estimation, there is nothing to “avoid” and nothing to gain. The only commodity that makes sense is “happiness.” “Does it make me happy now?” is the driving question. That is because there is nothing after this to consider.
But, if that value system is in error, there is a lot to lose. Pascal was commenting on the flawed system, not the value of belief. So Paul’s contention is valid. But the unbeliever does not have that perspective. By taking the perspective that he has, and leveraging it against the options, we can “move” him to Christ. And once there, he will understand the gigantic error that he almost made.
Neither Paul nor Pascal were discounting the certainty of the resurrection and Jesus’ return. Pascal was burrowing inside the logical wall of skepticism to blast that barrier down. A man living in darkness is oblivious to beauty. Trying to reason him into believing that there is beauty is pointless. What he needs if for someone to turn on the light. Pascal said, “Click.” (Not literally for the imagination challenged. But he did shine the light.)
I chose Jesus.
On the other hand, if this belief is true, and he rejects it, he will have a lost eternity. And it is worse than nothingness. It is a reasonable wager to choose the option that will not end up forever lost if it is right.
The problem is 1 Corinthians 15. Verses 29-32 are the key point:
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31 I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (Verse 29 is a rhetorical question. We can deal with that later if you wish.)
Paul rejected the idea that just “living for Jesus” now, in this present life, is enough “reward.” Note that he recounted some of his “reward.”(v. 30, 31, 32) If there is not resurrection, then his sacrifice was wasted. It was worthless. So does this refute Pascal’s equation? Read on.
Ravi explained something that I, and the other commentators I have read, have missed. It is that Pascal used the unbeliever’s own value system. In his estimation, there is nothing to “avoid” and nothing to gain. The only commodity that makes sense is “happiness.” “Does it make me happy now?” is the driving question. That is because there is nothing after this to consider.
But, if that value system is in error, there is a lot to lose. Pascal was commenting on the flawed system, not the value of belief. So Paul’s contention is valid. But the unbeliever does not have that perspective. By taking the perspective that he has, and leveraging it against the options, we can “move” him to Christ. And once there, he will understand the gigantic error that he almost made.
Neither Paul nor Pascal were discounting the certainty of the resurrection and Jesus’ return. Pascal was burrowing inside the logical wall of skepticism to blast that barrier down. A man living in darkness is oblivious to beauty. Trying to reason him into believing that there is beauty is pointless. What he needs if for someone to turn on the light. Pascal said, “Click.” (Not literally for the imagination challenged. But he did shine the light.)
I chose Jesus.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
More Flat Earth
Did you ever notice how two different words sound much alike and sometimes complement each other? An example is obsessed and abscessed. Sometimes my wife thinks that my obsessions have turned into abscessions. That may indeed be the case, but once the abscess is lanced and the putrid contents exposed to the air, the wound heals. Some of my obsessions require just such a procedure. Flat earth seems to be just such an obsession. But, I will open it up today, and sleep much better tonight.
The flat-earth backers have a lot of unanswered and unanswerable questions to solve. (Theories) Here are a few more just to stir the pot a little more. (Note: Do not look “Flat earth” up on the internet. It is worse than I have made it. It is totally mind boggling to look at the monstrous errors that they claim are fact. It made my teeth hurt as I ground my jaw.)
One site, for instance shows a downward look at the north pole (polar projection) with the sun circling over the disk like a giant flood light. If you search for them, you will not find one like they show, because they “add” the polar regions, showing Antarctica stretching all the way around the outer “ring” of the map. The sun makes a small circle around the north pole (Tropic of Cancer) in the summer in the northern hemisphere–oops, cannot call it that, call it an inner ring. Then the track widens out in the fall and circles the Tropic of Capricorn during the winter.
This accounts for the seasons and the equinoxes. Just how the sun changes its track like that was not explained in the discussion I read. Maybe it was like my grade school teacher who informed me that the tilt of the earth “just happened” as the earth oscillated 23.3 degrees toward the sun and away. I had wondered how it stopped and tilted back. “It just does.” Oh, and by the way, these longer tracks in fall and winter would require the sun to speed up, then slow down as it moves back “north.” The length of day does not change from 24 hours, so the sun must vary its velocity. “It just does.”
Can we call it the north pole, since it is at the center of the disk? Oh, and where would the South pole be? This guess (we will not dignify it with the label, “theory”), this guess fails here. In reality, if you start at the north pole and go any direction from there, you are going south. On this diagram you can go east, west, or south. And depending on which direction you choose, you will end up at a different part of Antarctica. (Stop before you go off the edge. I wonder why no one has seen the “edge of the world” on the trips to the Antarctic? But I digress.)
In the real world, going straight south, using any radial direction from the North pole will end up at the South pole. The same spot. The supposed disk theory does not yield that result. Remember one of the rules for theories? They have to account for all of the data. Flat-earth fails here.
Let’s dig a little deeper. How, pray tell does one make a “spotlight” or floodlight out of a luminous body of some type? Ow! My jaw. It also shows the sun, followed by the moon, circling like a record player needle above the disk of the earth. The directional light shines down on the part of the disk directly below it. It does explain the progressive dawn, but does not describe the appearance of “rising and setting.” (The rising disproves the FE, as noted before.)
A jet plane, flying overhead with its landing lights on does not appear to rise from the horizon. It gradually appears high in the sky and as it gets closer, the lights are brighter. Passing overhead the process reverses with the lights gradually dimming until they “wink” out. Another failure to explain observed phenomena.
Think about the moon. First, how does a “directional” light shine “backwards” to illuminate the moon? And how does the moon change phases and even eclipse the sun? A lunar eclipse would be impossible as the earth is never between the sun and the moon. To conclude, if the moon circles the earth like the sun, how can it be out of the plane of the sun? More data failure.
The picture shown on the web site shows the sun and moon circling the earth in tandem like a horse and buggy. But their “orbital periods” are not linked, as shown. The “day and night” circling over a given point on earth is 24 hours, but their other motions do not correlate. They would have to utilize three dimensional space to do the “dance” that they do. It’s gettin’ worse.
The earth is not moving, unless you take the guy who said the whole disk was accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second, thus we do not really have gravity at all. That is how they answer the gravity question and center of gravity suggested before. Oh, but it raises another. If the whole disk is going upward, pushing the sun, moon, and stars in front of it, why would we weigh less on a mountain top than at sea level? The acceleration would be equal on all points, so the “apparent weight” of the acceleration should be equal. (We will also run up against the law of relativity. Calculate how fast the disk would be going if it accelerates at 9.8 m/sec/sec. In less than 10 years, we would be going faster than the speed of light–or slowing waaaay down.) ((Hint: The speed of light is 3 times 10 to the 8th. Velocity equals acceleration divided by time. Time = 300000000/9.8 or 3543 days.)
The coup de gras is the mathematical explanation as to why the earth cannot be a sphere. A guy set up a telescope six miles from a target and could see it. Using the Pythagorean theorem he calculated that the two points, if they were on a sphere, would have a “hump” of water between them, obscuring the observation. Another guy repeated this over 23 miles and got the same, only larger of course, result. He could see the opposite shore. This was all on water, which would be flat. But it would be “curved” if the earth were a sphere.
I will spare you the spurious calculations. (Got to use “spurious” twice in the same week.) But to summarize they assumed that the earth was a box, calculated the radius of the two points on the “circle” and proved that this was wrong. Wait. What was that? They assumed that the earth was a box (flat), then proved it wrong, and claimed that it proved the flat earth? See why it is spurious?
Just in case you wonder, they discount all documents that do not agree with their floppy reasoning. Pictures and such taken from space are all a gigantic conspiracy to keep us from knowing that the earth is flat. Why is not clear. What is to be gained? But I digress. I will pass on geostationary satellites. The load of problems is getting pretty high.
One question that was asked was can I see the curve of the earth from a plane? The answer is puzzling. “No ‘they’ will not let civilian aircraft fly higher than 40,000 feet which is the minimum needed to see the curve." Since there is no curve, everyone who saw that would doubt the round earth hypothesis. Wait, if being 35,000 feet in the air is not enough to see the curvature of the earth, how can a six or even 23 mile “sample” prove that there is no curve? Internal agreement among data is another critical component of theories. Flat earth is not even consistent with itself.
If the sun and moon merely circle overhead, how can they have different motions on a yearly and longer basis? Some stars, planets really, “wander around” in the star field. Probably another artifact of the conspiracists.
Two final thoughts. In order to produce such a convoluted system, we have to propose numerous special accommodations to make it work. It reminds me of my evolutionary friends who, when explaining the process or mechanism of changes in the supposed chain of events leading from the production of life itself, to the development of homo sapiens, say that “something” changed, and they wave their hands wildly, proclaiming that “evolution proceeded to produce” the change. No proof is offered. They merely assume that something happened and “voila!” we have evolution. Oh yes, wave hands.
Second, why even both with such nonsense? A sharp fifth grader can probably point out more errors than we have discussed. Some of the flat-earthers claim a Biblical “proof” for their folderol. (Did you know that you can spell that word in three ways, according to online dictionaries? Folderol, falderol, or falderal are all given. I guess that is appropriate. It is all nonsense.But I digress.)
Their verse is Isaiah 40:22. “God is enthroned above the circle of the earth;” Taking this to mean a disk is more an artifact of translation than the original language. Henry Morris helps us here.
He starts in Job 26:10. “He (God) hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.” Morris continues,
As far as the Bible is concerned, the word “compassed” in our text is the Hebrew khug, meaning “circle,” or even “sphere.” It is so translated in Isaiah 40:22; “It is [God] that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.” Viewed from any point in space, the earth would appear simply as a great circle, with its spherical shape projected on a plane.
If the earth were flat, all of the water in the oceans would run off the edge–unless we make another accommodation. More complications for the Flat Earth Society. (FES)
My reason for debating this is that implying that the Bible says something so patently erroneous and outrageous destroys the credibility of the rest of God’s Word. Isaiah and Jeremiah faced “false prophets” who were undermining the veracity of what God really said. Their end was not pleasant. (The pseudo-prophets that is.) But they did influence a lot of the Children of Israel to follow them, to destruction and probably perdition.
False or pseudo science can lead people astray today. The FES should “fess up” and admit that they are not protecting or supporting the Bible. They are subverting it. Lance that boil.
The flat-earth backers have a lot of unanswered and unanswerable questions to solve. (Theories) Here are a few more just to stir the pot a little more. (Note: Do not look “Flat earth” up on the internet. It is worse than I have made it. It is totally mind boggling to look at the monstrous errors that they claim are fact. It made my teeth hurt as I ground my jaw.)
One site, for instance shows a downward look at the north pole (polar projection) with the sun circling over the disk like a giant flood light. If you search for them, you will not find one like they show, because they “add” the polar regions, showing Antarctica stretching all the way around the outer “ring” of the map. The sun makes a small circle around the north pole (Tropic of Cancer) in the summer in the northern hemisphere–oops, cannot call it that, call it an inner ring. Then the track widens out in the fall and circles the Tropic of Capricorn during the winter.
This accounts for the seasons and the equinoxes. Just how the sun changes its track like that was not explained in the discussion I read. Maybe it was like my grade school teacher who informed me that the tilt of the earth “just happened” as the earth oscillated 23.3 degrees toward the sun and away. I had wondered how it stopped and tilted back. “It just does.” Oh, and by the way, these longer tracks in fall and winter would require the sun to speed up, then slow down as it moves back “north.” The length of day does not change from 24 hours, so the sun must vary its velocity. “It just does.”
Can we call it the north pole, since it is at the center of the disk? Oh, and where would the South pole be? This guess (we will not dignify it with the label, “theory”), this guess fails here. In reality, if you start at the north pole and go any direction from there, you are going south. On this diagram you can go east, west, or south. And depending on which direction you choose, you will end up at a different part of Antarctica. (Stop before you go off the edge. I wonder why no one has seen the “edge of the world” on the trips to the Antarctic? But I digress.)
In the real world, going straight south, using any radial direction from the North pole will end up at the South pole. The same spot. The supposed disk theory does not yield that result. Remember one of the rules for theories? They have to account for all of the data. Flat-earth fails here.
Let’s dig a little deeper. How, pray tell does one make a “spotlight” or floodlight out of a luminous body of some type? Ow! My jaw. It also shows the sun, followed by the moon, circling like a record player needle above the disk of the earth. The directional light shines down on the part of the disk directly below it. It does explain the progressive dawn, but does not describe the appearance of “rising and setting.” (The rising disproves the FE, as noted before.)
A jet plane, flying overhead with its landing lights on does not appear to rise from the horizon. It gradually appears high in the sky and as it gets closer, the lights are brighter. Passing overhead the process reverses with the lights gradually dimming until they “wink” out. Another failure to explain observed phenomena.
Think about the moon. First, how does a “directional” light shine “backwards” to illuminate the moon? And how does the moon change phases and even eclipse the sun? A lunar eclipse would be impossible as the earth is never between the sun and the moon. To conclude, if the moon circles the earth like the sun, how can it be out of the plane of the sun? More data failure.
The picture shown on the web site shows the sun and moon circling the earth in tandem like a horse and buggy. But their “orbital periods” are not linked, as shown. The “day and night” circling over a given point on earth is 24 hours, but their other motions do not correlate. They would have to utilize three dimensional space to do the “dance” that they do. It’s gettin’ worse.
The earth is not moving, unless you take the guy who said the whole disk was accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second, thus we do not really have gravity at all. That is how they answer the gravity question and center of gravity suggested before. Oh, but it raises another. If the whole disk is going upward, pushing the sun, moon, and stars in front of it, why would we weigh less on a mountain top than at sea level? The acceleration would be equal on all points, so the “apparent weight” of the acceleration should be equal. (We will also run up against the law of relativity. Calculate how fast the disk would be going if it accelerates at 9.8 m/sec/sec. In less than 10 years, we would be going faster than the speed of light–or slowing waaaay down.) ((Hint: The speed of light is 3 times 10 to the 8th. Velocity equals acceleration divided by time. Time = 300000000/9.8 or 3543 days.)
The coup de gras is the mathematical explanation as to why the earth cannot be a sphere. A guy set up a telescope six miles from a target and could see it. Using the Pythagorean theorem he calculated that the two points, if they were on a sphere, would have a “hump” of water between them, obscuring the observation. Another guy repeated this over 23 miles and got the same, only larger of course, result. He could see the opposite shore. This was all on water, which would be flat. But it would be “curved” if the earth were a sphere.
I will spare you the spurious calculations. (Got to use “spurious” twice in the same week.) But to summarize they assumed that the earth was a box, calculated the radius of the two points on the “circle” and proved that this was wrong. Wait. What was that? They assumed that the earth was a box (flat), then proved it wrong, and claimed that it proved the flat earth? See why it is spurious?
Just in case you wonder, they discount all documents that do not agree with their floppy reasoning. Pictures and such taken from space are all a gigantic conspiracy to keep us from knowing that the earth is flat. Why is not clear. What is to be gained? But I digress. I will pass on geostationary satellites. The load of problems is getting pretty high.
One question that was asked was can I see the curve of the earth from a plane? The answer is puzzling. “No ‘they’ will not let civilian aircraft fly higher than 40,000 feet which is the minimum needed to see the curve." Since there is no curve, everyone who saw that would doubt the round earth hypothesis. Wait, if being 35,000 feet in the air is not enough to see the curvature of the earth, how can a six or even 23 mile “sample” prove that there is no curve? Internal agreement among data is another critical component of theories. Flat earth is not even consistent with itself.
If the sun and moon merely circle overhead, how can they have different motions on a yearly and longer basis? Some stars, planets really, “wander around” in the star field. Probably another artifact of the conspiracists.
Two final thoughts. In order to produce such a convoluted system, we have to propose numerous special accommodations to make it work. It reminds me of my evolutionary friends who, when explaining the process or mechanism of changes in the supposed chain of events leading from the production of life itself, to the development of homo sapiens, say that “something” changed, and they wave their hands wildly, proclaiming that “evolution proceeded to produce” the change. No proof is offered. They merely assume that something happened and “voila!” we have evolution. Oh yes, wave hands.
Second, why even both with such nonsense? A sharp fifth grader can probably point out more errors than we have discussed. Some of the flat-earthers claim a Biblical “proof” for their folderol. (Did you know that you can spell that word in three ways, according to online dictionaries? Folderol, falderol, or falderal are all given. I guess that is appropriate. It is all nonsense.But I digress.)
Their verse is Isaiah 40:22. “God is enthroned above the circle of the earth;” Taking this to mean a disk is more an artifact of translation than the original language. Henry Morris helps us here.
He starts in Job 26:10. “He (God) hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.” Morris continues,
As far as the Bible is concerned, the word “compassed” in our text is the Hebrew khug, meaning “circle,” or even “sphere.” It is so translated in Isaiah 40:22; “It is [God] that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.” Viewed from any point in space, the earth would appear simply as a great circle, with its spherical shape projected on a plane.
If the earth were flat, all of the water in the oceans would run off the edge–unless we make another accommodation. More complications for the Flat Earth Society. (FES)
My reason for debating this is that implying that the Bible says something so patently erroneous and outrageous destroys the credibility of the rest of God’s Word. Isaiah and Jeremiah faced “false prophets” who were undermining the veracity of what God really said. Their end was not pleasant. (The pseudo-prophets that is.) But they did influence a lot of the Children of Israel to follow them, to destruction and probably perdition.
False or pseudo science can lead people astray today. The FES should “fess up” and admit that they are not protecting or supporting the Bible. They are subverting it. Lance that boil.
Friday, September 8, 2017
Theories (Flat Earth)
A science theory is not a “real thing.” It is an explanation of “why” things happen. It does not make things happen, it describes the circumstances that are required for an event, a phenomenon, to occur. Take the recent eclipse, for instance. When “scientists” first noticed that the sun disappeared occasionally, they wondered why. (A scientist is merely an observer of phenomena.)
As they watched more carefully, they noticed that the moon moved in front of the sun. Why? Notice an “answer” usually generates one or more other questions. Why and how can the moon move in front of the sun? Again observation led to the development of the concept of paths or orbits for the moon and the earth. By observing them and projecting where they led, astronomers were able to predict when an eclipse would occur and even where on the earth it would appear.
The theory developed and was useful in many ways. The concept of a theory is that it encompasses all known data and proposes an explanation as to how and why they (phenomena) occur. A theory first must account for all known data, including those points that fall “outside” of the normal range of observation. If it cannot incorporate the “out-liers” it must explain how they can be legitimately excluded or ignored.
Besides including all relevant data, the theory must correlate with all other known theories that may impinge on the subject. One theory cannot say that north is up and another say that north is down unless they are in different worlds. These two components are critical in the development and implementation of theories to explain the world.
Finally, a theory should be predictive. If it adequately explains known phenomena, then a change of parameters will produce a new and predictable outcome. It goes without saying that using the same parameters should always produce the same result. And changing them should produce a changed result.
This somewhat long and possibly boring explanation is necessary to support the following statement. A theory is not changed on a whim or based on a single or even a few data points. A change of theory must meet the previously outlined criteria. If it doesn’t meet them it is merely a fancy or a plaything. And it is bogus, spurious. (Don’t get to use that often.)((Although we encounter such items more often than we should.))
With that in mind, a puzzling resurgence of belief in a flat earth has arisen lately, even to the extent of some college football players proclaiming that they are “flat earthers.” (To be brutally frank and logical, one would surmise that such “beliefs and pronouncements” are merely the result of following a fad, which was generated by a self-proclaimed superiority and elevated egalitarianism. “We are more sophisticated than the normal population, so we have a superior view of ‘reality.’” Which is in fact an inferior view.)
A flat earth is the result of such thinking, unless it is totally ignorant of the facts, data involved in the question. But before spiking the gun permanently on such thinking, let’s give it the benefit of the du-bit. Our very first question about a “flat earth” is its configuration. We know that parts of the earth are dark when other parts are lighted. (The original “flat earth” proponents were ignorant of such data. All they knew was their limited arena, and for all they knew, the edge of the earth, as they could see or explore, dropped off into nothingness.)
But our expanded body of knowledge gives us the puzzle of light and dark on the same flat earth. How can that be? Incidentally, we also know that the sun must somehow circle this earth out of the plane, or vertically, as it comes up in the east and goes down in the west. It cannot just circle above the disk of the earth because it would not be able to follow the arc through the sky that it does.
A giant “dark wall” cannot explain how part of the earth can be light while the other part is dark, unless it is a high as the sun. It will fail as an explanation because we cannot find it. Our travel “around the world” has not produced a turning point where it is dark on one side and light on the other. Lack of data is as detrimental to a theory as controverting data. Maybe even more so.
And just being a “shade” is not enough. If you walk behind the barn, where the sun cannot reach you, it is not dark. Light is diffused by the air and when the sun is up, it is light everywhere, even shadows, except where the sun cannot reach at all. And a wall only as high as the mountains would allow the sun to shine over it and eventually reach the other side as it orbits overhead.
That is not reasonable, as the rising sun would be seen far west of the wall first then progressively eastward as it rises until it crosses the wall, and shines on all of the “sun side.” This does not happen, so the theory fails there. (Explain and correlate will all known data.)
The flat earth must be a two sided disk with light on one side and dark on the other. The route of the sun is quite complicated, as it is equidistant from all parts of the surface. More about that later. A traveler, traveling “around the world,” involve a rapid change from seeing the northern skies on the top side, to a transition “around the edge,” to seeing the southern skies in a very short time on the other side.
That is not our main reason for rejecting this theory of the flat earth. The center of gravity of a disk is not equidistant from all positions on the earth disk. So gravity would exert more force a body at the center of the disk than at the extreme edges. You would weigh more in the center of the disk than at any other point, and your weight would decrease until you “reached the edge” then flipped and began to return to a location closer to the center. At the same altitude, a body would weigh the same anywhere on the surface of a globe. More contradictory data.
But that is not even the “ dead bang killer” argument. That is reserved for the sunrise. Every place on a flat disk would see the sun as soon as it rose in the east. The far western edge would see it as soon as the far eastern edge, except for some mountain interference. But once the sun was three or four miles above the eastern horizon, higher than the mountains, it would be visible to the entire disk. Data again is a killer of bad theories.
It is relatively simple to document a “moving dawn” all across the country and indeed the entire world-disk. This even harks back to the third grade science lesson where Miss Carlson explained, or read from a book, that a ship at sea appears from the top down. First only the top of the sail is seen, then more progressively appears, top down, until we can see the entire ship. This would not happen on a flat ocean. It is a mark of a curved surface.
Likewise the progressive sunrise is distinctive of a curved surface, and not a flat one. Flat earth is dead. Scientifically, that is. It does not correspond with any observed data. It does not correlate with other theoretical phenomena. It is contradicted by observed data. And it does not predict anything that really occurs.
If it persists, it is based on, well, not to be too critical, but on faulty observation and understanding. For those who like to joust at unicorns, take your shots. I am sticking to science.
Reality is much more real. (Incidentally, the Bible does not support a flat earth, so just leave that broken arrow in the quiver.)
And that, students, is the lesson for today. Any questions?
As they watched more carefully, they noticed that the moon moved in front of the sun. Why? Notice an “answer” usually generates one or more other questions. Why and how can the moon move in front of the sun? Again observation led to the development of the concept of paths or orbits for the moon and the earth. By observing them and projecting where they led, astronomers were able to predict when an eclipse would occur and even where on the earth it would appear.
The theory developed and was useful in many ways. The concept of a theory is that it encompasses all known data and proposes an explanation as to how and why they (phenomena) occur. A theory first must account for all known data, including those points that fall “outside” of the normal range of observation. If it cannot incorporate the “out-liers” it must explain how they can be legitimately excluded or ignored.
Besides including all relevant data, the theory must correlate with all other known theories that may impinge on the subject. One theory cannot say that north is up and another say that north is down unless they are in different worlds. These two components are critical in the development and implementation of theories to explain the world.
Finally, a theory should be predictive. If it adequately explains known phenomena, then a change of parameters will produce a new and predictable outcome. It goes without saying that using the same parameters should always produce the same result. And changing them should produce a changed result.
This somewhat long and possibly boring explanation is necessary to support the following statement. A theory is not changed on a whim or based on a single or even a few data points. A change of theory must meet the previously outlined criteria. If it doesn’t meet them it is merely a fancy or a plaything. And it is bogus, spurious. (Don’t get to use that often.)((Although we encounter such items more often than we should.))
With that in mind, a puzzling resurgence of belief in a flat earth has arisen lately, even to the extent of some college football players proclaiming that they are “flat earthers.” (To be brutally frank and logical, one would surmise that such “beliefs and pronouncements” are merely the result of following a fad, which was generated by a self-proclaimed superiority and elevated egalitarianism. “We are more sophisticated than the normal population, so we have a superior view of ‘reality.’” Which is in fact an inferior view.)
A flat earth is the result of such thinking, unless it is totally ignorant of the facts, data involved in the question. But before spiking the gun permanently on such thinking, let’s give it the benefit of the du-bit. Our very first question about a “flat earth” is its configuration. We know that parts of the earth are dark when other parts are lighted. (The original “flat earth” proponents were ignorant of such data. All they knew was their limited arena, and for all they knew, the edge of the earth, as they could see or explore, dropped off into nothingness.)
But our expanded body of knowledge gives us the puzzle of light and dark on the same flat earth. How can that be? Incidentally, we also know that the sun must somehow circle this earth out of the plane, or vertically, as it comes up in the east and goes down in the west. It cannot just circle above the disk of the earth because it would not be able to follow the arc through the sky that it does.
A giant “dark wall” cannot explain how part of the earth can be light while the other part is dark, unless it is a high as the sun. It will fail as an explanation because we cannot find it. Our travel “around the world” has not produced a turning point where it is dark on one side and light on the other. Lack of data is as detrimental to a theory as controverting data. Maybe even more so.
And just being a “shade” is not enough. If you walk behind the barn, where the sun cannot reach you, it is not dark. Light is diffused by the air and when the sun is up, it is light everywhere, even shadows, except where the sun cannot reach at all. And a wall only as high as the mountains would allow the sun to shine over it and eventually reach the other side as it orbits overhead.
That is not reasonable, as the rising sun would be seen far west of the wall first then progressively eastward as it rises until it crosses the wall, and shines on all of the “sun side.” This does not happen, so the theory fails there. (Explain and correlate will all known data.)
The flat earth must be a two sided disk with light on one side and dark on the other. The route of the sun is quite complicated, as it is equidistant from all parts of the surface. More about that later. A traveler, traveling “around the world,” involve a rapid change from seeing the northern skies on the top side, to a transition “around the edge,” to seeing the southern skies in a very short time on the other side.
That is not our main reason for rejecting this theory of the flat earth. The center of gravity of a disk is not equidistant from all positions on the earth disk. So gravity would exert more force a body at the center of the disk than at the extreme edges. You would weigh more in the center of the disk than at any other point, and your weight would decrease until you “reached the edge” then flipped and began to return to a location closer to the center. At the same altitude, a body would weigh the same anywhere on the surface of a globe. More contradictory data.
But that is not even the “ dead bang killer” argument. That is reserved for the sunrise. Every place on a flat disk would see the sun as soon as it rose in the east. The far western edge would see it as soon as the far eastern edge, except for some mountain interference. But once the sun was three or four miles above the eastern horizon, higher than the mountains, it would be visible to the entire disk. Data again is a killer of bad theories.
It is relatively simple to document a “moving dawn” all across the country and indeed the entire world-disk. This even harks back to the third grade science lesson where Miss Carlson explained, or read from a book, that a ship at sea appears from the top down. First only the top of the sail is seen, then more progressively appears, top down, until we can see the entire ship. This would not happen on a flat ocean. It is a mark of a curved surface.
Likewise the progressive sunrise is distinctive of a curved surface, and not a flat one. Flat earth is dead. Scientifically, that is. It does not correspond with any observed data. It does not correlate with other theoretical phenomena. It is contradicted by observed data. And it does not predict anything that really occurs.
If it persists, it is based on, well, not to be too critical, but on faulty observation and understanding. For those who like to joust at unicorns, take your shots. I am sticking to science.
Reality is much more real. (Incidentally, the Bible does not support a flat earth, so just leave that broken arrow in the quiver.)
And that, students, is the lesson for today. Any questions?
Friday, September 1, 2017
The God Who Bursts Out
God is a God Who bursts out. David personally observed that when he fought against some of his enemies. 2 Samuel 5:20 quotes David in response to his victory. (Repeated in 2 Chronicles 14:11)
So David went to Baal-perazim and defeated them there and said, “Like a bursting flood, the Lord has burst out against my enemies before me.” Therefore, he named that place the Lord Bursts Out.
But “bursting” can be a double edged sword. This happened when a guy named Uzzah in 1 Chronicles 13:11 when he violated the sanctity of the Ark of the Covenant by touching it. The Lord immediately struck him dead.
David was angry because of the Lord’s outburst against Uzzah, so he named that place Outburst Against Uzzah, as it is still named today.
Even doing something "good" like keeping the Ark from upsetting is not a legitimate means of obeying the Lord. He had given specific instructions as to how the Ark was to be transported. They did not do that, but chose "their own way." This is a recipe for disaster from Adam on down.
This is the background for our thoughts today. If God is a bursting God, then would it be appropriate to “burst out” in praise to Him? It seems that Paul did. At the end of Romans 11, where Paul explains the dynamics of God’s choice of Israel, then the grafting into their place of the Gentiles, followed by the unification of both groups in worship to Him.
Paul bursts out in praise to the Lord in Romans 11: 33
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments and untraceable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor? 35 Or who has ever first given to Him, and has to be repaid? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
Amen! Paul is about to jump out of his skin, and after a study of the chapter, I am jumping too. God was able to bring two diametrically opposed (philosophically, at least) groups together in one. We all know the tale of woe that accompanied God’s choice of Israel and their often illegitimate response to Him. God’s discipline included shipping them off to Babylon, en masse, then returning them to the land. They still rejected Him, to the point of killing the Messiah. But God did not give up on them nor abandon them.
Read the chapter to find out the resolution that God crafted. It is worth it.
Then Paul was talking about his ministry in Ephesians 3 and began to focus on the power of prayer. He just burst out again.
20 Now to Him who is able to do above and beyond all that we ask or think according to the power that works in us— 21 to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
In the Old Testament, Jeremiah had an episode of bursting in chapter 32. He had just redeemed a parcel of land in his hometown in the face of the Babylonian invasion. He had been prophesying that Jerusalem and Judah would be overrun by the Babylonians and be in captivity for 70 years. So his “purchase” seemed to make no sense in light of the current circumstances.
After “closing the deal” he experienced an “ah ha!” moment. Listen. Verse 17
Ah, Lord God! You Yourself made the heavens and earth by Your great power and with Your outstretched arm. Nothing is too difficult for You!
So if God had created the heavens and earth, preserving Jeremiah’s investment would be a minor accomplishment. (Notice again that creation is assumed to be valid and not speculative, figurative, or mythical.)
Our recent thoughts have focused on the wonders of the solar system and, I don’t know about you, but I am bursting with wonder at the spectacular vistas included in our solar system. And compared to the entire universe, this is not even a speck on a flea on a hair on a wart on a frog on a log on the bottom of the lake. (More on the Eclipse.)
Jeremiah did not have this perspective, but he did have a perspective of God. This God bursts out against illnesses and problems on a regular basis. We can all enumerate several examples of where God “burst out” against cancer, liver disease, strokes, heart attacks, weather events, and on and on. He takes care of us. Jeremiah understood and proclaimed that.
Count me in that crew. Glory!
So David went to Baal-perazim and defeated them there and said, “Like a bursting flood, the Lord has burst out against my enemies before me.” Therefore, he named that place the Lord Bursts Out.
But “bursting” can be a double edged sword. This happened when a guy named Uzzah in 1 Chronicles 13:11 when he violated the sanctity of the Ark of the Covenant by touching it. The Lord immediately struck him dead.
David was angry because of the Lord’s outburst against Uzzah, so he named that place Outburst Against Uzzah, as it is still named today.
Even doing something "good" like keeping the Ark from upsetting is not a legitimate means of obeying the Lord. He had given specific instructions as to how the Ark was to be transported. They did not do that, but chose "their own way." This is a recipe for disaster from Adam on down.
This is the background for our thoughts today. If God is a bursting God, then would it be appropriate to “burst out” in praise to Him? It seems that Paul did. At the end of Romans 11, where Paul explains the dynamics of God’s choice of Israel, then the grafting into their place of the Gentiles, followed by the unification of both groups in worship to Him.
Paul bursts out in praise to the Lord in Romans 11: 33
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments and untraceable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor? 35 Or who has ever first given to Him, and has to be repaid? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
Amen! Paul is about to jump out of his skin, and after a study of the chapter, I am jumping too. God was able to bring two diametrically opposed (philosophically, at least) groups together in one. We all know the tale of woe that accompanied God’s choice of Israel and their often illegitimate response to Him. God’s discipline included shipping them off to Babylon, en masse, then returning them to the land. They still rejected Him, to the point of killing the Messiah. But God did not give up on them nor abandon them.
Read the chapter to find out the resolution that God crafted. It is worth it.
Then Paul was talking about his ministry in Ephesians 3 and began to focus on the power of prayer. He just burst out again.
20 Now to Him who is able to do above and beyond all that we ask or think according to the power that works in us— 21 to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
In the Old Testament, Jeremiah had an episode of bursting in chapter 32. He had just redeemed a parcel of land in his hometown in the face of the Babylonian invasion. He had been prophesying that Jerusalem and Judah would be overrun by the Babylonians and be in captivity for 70 years. So his “purchase” seemed to make no sense in light of the current circumstances.
After “closing the deal” he experienced an “ah ha!” moment. Listen. Verse 17
Ah, Lord God! You Yourself made the heavens and earth by Your great power and with Your outstretched arm. Nothing is too difficult for You!
So if God had created the heavens and earth, preserving Jeremiah’s investment would be a minor accomplishment. (Notice again that creation is assumed to be valid and not speculative, figurative, or mythical.)
Our recent thoughts have focused on the wonders of the solar system and, I don’t know about you, but I am bursting with wonder at the spectacular vistas included in our solar system. And compared to the entire universe, this is not even a speck on a flea on a hair on a wart on a frog on a log on the bottom of the lake. (More on the Eclipse.)
Jeremiah did not have this perspective, but he did have a perspective of God. This God bursts out against illnesses and problems on a regular basis. We can all enumerate several examples of where God “burst out” against cancer, liver disease, strokes, heart attacks, weather events, and on and on. He takes care of us. Jeremiah understood and proclaimed that.
Count me in that crew. Glory!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)