Pro and Con 601

Posted 9-20-00

Incoming email

From: rense.com.
Asteroid Strike Risk Said 'Intolerable' In New Assessment, By Mark Henderson. 9-19-00
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/09/19/timnwsnws02006.html

...An asteroid 0.6 miles across, which strikes Earth every 100,000 to 200,000 years, would explode with a force 65,000 times as powerful as a hydrogen bomb, causing a "nuclear winter" effect and killing up to 1.5 billion people.

Smaller objects, which strike at an interval of 70,000 years, could kill as many as 500,000 people, depending on the place of impact. The effects would be worse if such an object were to land in the ocean: one impact, south west of Chile 2.15 million years ago, generated a tsunami 229ft high that had reached Japan within 20 hours....

My reply to previously posted email

> > Long story short-Dr. Gerald Schroeder, of the University in Jerusalem, has written a book called, "The Science of God" and "God and the Big Bang". I believe that he has finally nailed it, and I suggest that all Christians read it as it brings peace the conflicting argument.
> > Jesus said that our traditions make the Word of God ineffective. I believe that Creationism is just such a tradition. A good theory that has become a tradition in the church.
> > PLEASE READ THE BOOK.

Someone very nice sent me Book 1 and Book 2. I enjoyed both. I agree with some of what Schroeder has to say, but not all, and disagree with his main conclusion. On the other hand, I agree with you on Creationism as taught by some. In my eyes, neither is 100% correct, but the Scriptures are true. It is our understanding of them that is faulty.

In a video, I heard Charles Capps say something that I did not understand--about 15B years being the same as the 6 days of Genesis 1. I thought, "What?" Now I know what he meant. He must have read Schroeder. In Bk 1, p 18, Schroeder said, "The flow of time and events from the big bang to the appearance of humankind is summarized in the thirty-one verses with which the Bible begins: Genesis 1. These few hundred words describe sixteen billion years of cosmic history."

"There is a simple answer to the problem of a scientifically old and biblically young universe," writes Schroeder (Bk 1, p 42,3), "an answer that has within it the core of a complex truth. Time as described in the Bible may not be the same as we know time today....Perhaps from a biblical perspective the six days of Genesis include the fifteen billion years we earthbound mortals estimate to be the span of time since the beginning of time."

Schroeder gave himself a handicap. "I have an agenda," writes Schroeder (Bk 1, p 51), "to demonstrate a harmony between science and the Bible. To limit my subjectifity, I have restricted my sources of scientific information to peer-reviewed data that are accepted in physics laboratories of leading universities. I have limited my sources of biblical interpretation to the Talmud (redacted in the year 500) and the kabalist Nahmanides (1250), the two mainstream traditional paths to the deeper meaning held within the text of Genesis.

In Book 2, he chose to go by 4 biblical commentators, Onkelos (c. 150 AD), Rashi (1040-1105 AD), Maimonides (1135-1204 AD) and Nahmanides (1194-1270 AD). He said, "It is on these four that I rely" (Bk 2, p 18). To me, that is not safe. To rely on men's words about God's word rather than on God's word itself is to leave the door open for imperfect human assumptions to creep in unnoticed. Then, to make an untrue assumption on the basis of human wisdom and build a theory on it is to build a house on sand instead of rock.

As I understand him, he thinks that the 1st six days of Genesis 1 relate to time as stretched out via Einstein's theory of relativity, as if this is the way God views time from Heaven--"Cosmic proper time." He also thinks that time after the creation of Adam is time as we know it, time as viewed by man from Earth--"conventional time."

In Bk 1, p 51, he wrote, "Most important of all, we know that there is no possible way for those first six days to have had an Earth-based perspective simply because for the first two of those six days there was no Earth. As Genesis 1:2 states "And the earth was unformed."

I'll stick with the Bible. Gen. 1:1 says, "In the beginning God CREATED the heaven and the EARTH." Gen. 1:2 says, "And the EARTH was (hayah, lit., became) without form (tohu, ruin), and void (bohu, desolation); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

n Hebrew, when the verb forms for "to be" are used, it means that there is a change. When they are not used, there is no change, and the verb has to be supplied by the reader. Therefore, in the KJV, when "was" appears, as in Gen. 1:2, we are to assume that there IS a change. When "was" appears in italics, as in the latter part of the same sentence, we are to assume that there is NO change. Therefore, there WAS a change in the Earth between verse 1 and 2. This agrees with Isa. 45:18: "thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he CREATED IT NOT IN VAIN (TOHU, RUIN), he formed it to be inhabited."

Gen. 2:7 says, "the LORD God formed (yatsar, moulded into a form, as a potter) man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became (hayah) a living soul." There was a change. At that point, Adam became what he was not before that moment. "Hayah" means that there was a change, just as it does in Gen. 1:2. Earth underwent a change between verses 1 and 2. In the beginning, it was not "tohu," ruin, but it became ruin because of a catastrophe.

Concerning tohu and bohu, Schroeder wrote, "'And the earth was tohu and bohu . . .' (Gen. 1:2). The usual translation of this verse from the book of Genesis is "And the earth was unformed (tohu) and void (bohu).' Unformed or chaotic is a fair translation of tohu. But bohu does not only mean void. Both the Talmud and Nahmanides state that bohu means filled with the building blocks of matter. "A more accurate, though cumberson, translation of Genesis 1:2 is: 'And the earth was in a state of chaos but filled with the building blocks of matter" (Bk 1, p 57).

Here is an example of what can happen when the underpinnings of a theory rest on the words of men. It was crucial to his conclusion that the earth be "in a state of chaos but filled with the building blocks of matter" in Gen. 1:2. It would have been far better to have paid more attention to Gen. 1:1, "In the beginning (eternity past) God created THE HEAVEN and THE EARTH," and Isa. 45:18, "thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed (yatsar, moulded into a form, as a potter) the EARTH and made it; he hath established it, HE CREATED IT NOT IN VAIN (not TOHU, "UNFORMED"), he formed (yatsar, moulded into a form) it to be inhabited."

"Literalism is simply not an effective way to extract meaning from the Bible...," wrote Schroeder (Bk 1, p. 10,11), "With a literal reading, the second sentence of the Bible contradicts the first sentence."

I disagree. I see no contradiction at all. Schroeder can have all the 15 or 16B years he needs between the first 2 verses of Genesis. As I see it, the Bible has no argument with him on this. The world did not have to wait until Einstein's time to understand Gen. 1:1,2. People do not have to understand Einstein's E = mc to the 2nd power to understand Gen. 1:1,2. God did not take it out of the realm of the common man's capacity to understand. He did not inspire the scriptures for the few, but for the many.

The Bible is mainly about 7000 years of time. We are not given concrete data upon which to construct time beyond this limit. We are only given hints of a few things that happen before "Let there be light" and after the Great White Throne Judgment.

We have to compare all parts of Scripture with each other to get the whole picture too. It is here a little and there a little, so the wicked will not understand. Isa. 28:13 says, "the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept...line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

The Big Bang theory is accepted by Schroeder. God did not see fit to tell us how he created the universe, but no one that accepts the Big Bang theory has yet figured out how energy got compressed into that pin point that banged. Since God has not revealed how he did these things, I do not know how he did it.

Schroeder's writings are helpful, if not all correct. He has his eyes open. He showed why "science has made the two most important steps it can ever make in closing ranks with the Bible: (1) there was a beginning to our universe, and (2) life started rapidly on Earth and not via millennia of purely random reactions...According to the fossil record, gradual evolution has been found to be false at every major morphological change" (Bk 1, p 29). "The explosion of life recorded in the Burgess Shale fossils contradicted, even confounded, this gradualism" (Bk 1, p. 38).

I agree with him when he said on page 45, "...the starting date of the biblical calendar was set at the creation of the souls of humankind (Gen. 1:27), and not at the creation of the universe, the 'In the beginning' of Genesis 1:1." I think that this "kosmos," order of things, began to operate on its own on the day God rested, Tishri 1 on the Jewish calendar. However, there was another "kosmos" before God said, "Let there be light." We are just not told much about it.

In the following, I have to differ with Schroeder. He is speaking of millions of years, not a 24-hour day. He said, "'And there was evening and there was morning a third day' (Gen. 1:9-13). No hint is given for the time each of the major events took." To me, there were 12 hours of night, then 12 hours of day. If the night had been much longer, the plants of day 3 would have died. I think that puts a definite limit on the duration of those 6 days. Also, because the Bible is consistent, if the 7th day was a 24-hour day, I think the other days of that week were 24-hour days. It doesn't compute for me that 6 days were spread over 15B years and the 7th day was a 24-hour day.

Gen. 2:3 says, "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created (bara) and made (asah, refashioned)." The word "bara," create is only used in reference to the original creation of the Heaven and the Earth, the creation of animal life and the creation of Adamic man. All the rest of the time, "asah," refashioned, is used. God knows the difference between "bara" and "asah." His use of them is discriminating.

On page 68 (Bk 1), Schroeder said, "The Biblical account of this period mentions the first liquid water on Earth as the oceans and dry land appear (Gen. 1:9). This is followed by plant life (Gen. 1:11). Though a simple reading of the text implies that all types of plants appeared on this day, KABALAH corrects this MISUNDERSTANDING, stating that 'there was NO special day assigned for this command for vegetation alone since it is not a unique work.' Of all the events listed for the six days, this is the only one that TRADITION STATES occurred over an extended period NOT limited to that particular day" (emphasis mine).

He would have done better if he had not relied on KABALAH and TRADITION, but had simply let the Bible say what it will. He discarded what the Bible plainly says for what man said, and it led him into error. He was too anxious to find justification for his ideas. When something is plain in Scripture, it is our ideas that must change, not the Bible. In Gen. 1:11-13, "God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the THIRD DAY." The evening represents 12 hours of the night on the Jewish calendar. The morning represents 12 hours of daylight.

Instead, he jumped off the deep end when he said, "The third day begins 3.8 billion years ago. This date betokened the close of an era during which Earth was bombarded by a rain of meteors so intense as to have made the start or survival of life highly improbable. Immediately, at that date, the first liquid water and the FIRST TRACES OF LIFE APPEAR" (emphasis mine) (Bk 1, p 69).

That does not agree with Gen. 2:5. It says, "And EVERY plant of the field ('The field is the world ['kosmos'],' Mt. 13:38) BEFORE IT was in the earth, and every herb of the field BEFORE it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." All these plants that sprang up on day 3 also grew in the previous "kosmos," orderly arrangement of things, that fit between the first 2 verses of the Bible. II Peter 3:5-7 says, "For this they willingly are IGNORANT of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old ('In the beginning,' Gen. 1:1), and the earth standing out of the water and in the water ('In the beginning'): Whereby the world ('kosmos') that then was, being overflowed with water, perished (became 'tohu' and 'bohu,' ruin and desolation): But the heavens and the EARTH , which are NOW (since Adam's day), by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

The Earth was "standing out of the water and in the water" in the previous "kosmos." Then a catastrophe took place, "And the earth was (hayah, became) without form (tohu, ruin), and void (bohu, desolation); and darkness was upon the face (surface) of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved (brooded) upon the face (surface) of the waters" (probably to warm them and thaw any ice) (Gen. 1:2). All the land was covered with water. Only on day 3 did God say, "let the dry land appear" as he was preparing the new "kosmos" for Adamic mankind.

On page 79 (Bk 1), Schroeder said, "The greatest point of contention between science and religion rises when believers insist God directly controls nature, while scientists insist that nature can run 'on its own.' Which is right?"

I think that God has set some things into motion, but he can intervene at any time. Also, the Son of God upholds "all things by the word of his power." Heb. 1:1-3 says, " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and UPHOLDING ALL THINGS BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

The following is interesting coming from a scientist. On pages 87-88, Book 1, he said, "There is a popular impression that fossils have proven the validity of classical evolution. Yet most paleontologists admit this is not the case. According to the picture presented by the fossil record, bursts of morphological change occurred within startlingly brief periods of time. This staccato aspect of the fossil record had not been predicted. Its discovery has called for basic rethinking concerning the mechanisms that drive evolution to ever greater complexity. These rapid changes cannot be explained by purely random mutations at the molecular genetic level. In light of the mounting evidence that the classical concept of evolution is flawed, the journal Science featured a peer-reviewed report titled 'Did Darwin Get It All Right?' In that article we learn that 'the most thorough study of species formation in the fossil record confirms that new species appear with a most un-Darwinian abruptness.' ...The fossil evidence that challenges this classic concept of evolution has been found worldwide: in western Canada, near Chengjiang in southern China, in Africa, Greenland, and Sweden. The Cambrian explosion of life encompassed the globe....all the other body plans represented in the thirty-four animal phyla extant today appear as a single burst in the fossil record. And it happened 530 million years ago. Those are the data. No one disputes them." I cannot dispute any length of time between Gen. 1:1 and 2. God simply has not told us how long it was between those 2 points.

Schroeder shows that there simply has not been enough time for life forms to have originated by chance. On page 98 (Bk 1), he said, "The statistical improbability of pure chance yielding even the simplest forms of life has made a mockery of the theory that random choice alone gave us the biosphere we see."

"Even more confounding to the traditional logic of evolution," he said on page 113 (Bk 1), "there is no evidence of evolution within the five-million-year span of the Cambrian explosion. Each of the animals in this era makes its first appearance fully developed."

Concerning Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal fossils, Schroeder said (Bk 1, p 116,117), "Our Cro-Magnon look-alike first appeared in the fossil record fifty to one hundred thousand years ago. By the time we reach ten thousand years before the present, there are enough fossils of Cro-Magnon to fill a modest-sized museum. These are dated by several independent methods and all methods give similar ages. "Either God put ready-made fossils in the ground for some unknown reason or Cro-Magnon existed. A theologian's pretense that the data are the fabricated musing of demented godless scientists is counterproductive to all sides. Since the Bible defines a human as an animal with a neshama--the spiritual soul of humanity (Gen. 2:7)--there is no biblical problem with human-looking creatures predating Adam. As Talmudic and ancient commentaries point out, they were animals with human shapes but lacking the neshama. Cro-Magnon fossils overlap in age with the more primitive Neanderthal....Discovery of this overlap countered the theory that Neanderthal developed (evolved) into Cro-Magnon."

Lest this get too long, I'll just give a couple more quotes that show how he thinks. On page 134 (Book 1), he said, "Our universe, tuned so accurately for the needs of intelligent life, indeed ticks to the beat of a very skillful Watchmaker." That is refreshing from the pen of a scientist.

Concerning fossil finds from 6000 to 40,000 years ago that fill museums, he said (Bk 1, p 131), "The early Bronze Age falls after the time of Adam but before the time of the Flood. The same dating techniques used for pre-Adam artifacts place the start of the Bronze Age at five thousand years before the present, just as does the biblical calendar. If the Flood had altered preflood finds such as those that predate Adam, it would have also altered the Bronze Age data. And it didn't. The pre-Adam data are valid."

I think Schroeder has lots to contribute to our fund of available information. I don't agree with everything, but that doesn't mean we can't sift through the wealth of information offered, keep the good and throw out the bad. He has his eyes open and tries hard to reconcile scientific findings with the Bible. If he would just let the Bible speak for itself, he would get farther. He is hampered by viewing it through the eyes of men. Agape

Incoming email

Re: God Bless You,Marilyn & Ed
What a Blessing You have been to me and my family & friends!!! We live to read your site everyday!!

You have shown us the way...and we know,we are on the right path to heaven,because of your site!!!I give your report to others everyday.And they give me the credit,for your knowledge& insight!!We All are hoping for the Lord's Coming...to get us out of this sick-sin full world,and to be home w/HIM!!! we dont know how you keep going,But we all pray for you & Ed...

Could you please inform us,of your insight on Sept. 29th?( you called it the eve of trumpets)Do you believe that could be the date?

I personally keep going because of you & your site...I owe you so much!!and ,of course ,I praise God for Everything!!!and I thank Him ,so much for You!! We all love you w/the Love of our Lord!!! The Boston Family & Friends

PS: My son just asked me ?.Was Moses circumsised?and if he was,wouldnt everyone know he was Hebrew and so would he ,while he was in his childhood,as prince of egypt! Clarify for us. thank you, and God Bless you & Ed _

My reply

Thanks for your kind words and prayers in our behalf. If it weren't for the Lord's help, I couldn't keep going. He said that without him we could do nothing. That is as true as the fact that he created this world. I have the determination to work through obstacles and pain, no matter what, but He makes it possible, one step at a time.

> > inform us,of your insight on Sept. 29th

To me, there are 2 dates that seem worth our consideration, the Eve of Trumpets (Sept. 29, 2000) and Ascension Day (May 18, 2001). Both would have powerful types and would be during the dry season in Israel, even if the Eve of Trumpets would barely make it.

I think Eve, Adam's bride, was taken out of Adam's body on the Eve of Trumpets, just before the "kosmos," orderly arrangement of things, began to operate on its own on the day that God rested from his work of creating and refashioning Earth to make it a fit habitat for Adamic man. Christ is referred to as the 2nd Adam. We are the Bride of Christ. There is a chance that we would also be taken out of the Body of Christ on the Eve of Trumpets. However, that could apply to the 144,000 "virgins" (Rev. 14:4,5) that are caught up in the Pre-Wrath Rapture (Rev. 7:14) between the breaking of the 6th (Rev. 6:12) and 7th seals (Rev. 8:1). The 7th seal is broken on the 1st day of the millennial Day of the Lord. This may be the beginning of a new "kosmos."

I somehow can't think that Song of Sol. 2:10-14 doesn't apply to the Rapture. To me, it makes Ascension Day seem the more likely of the 2 dates because it is in the spring, when winter is past, the rain over and gone, and when there are green figs and the firstripe grapes. The migratory turtledoves are in Israel from April to October. I think the Rapture during this span of time is most likely. Christ is the head of this Body of Christ. Since the head ascended on that 40th day after his resurrection, maybe we will too.

Re: Moses. Jos. 5:5 says, "Now ALL the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised." Therefore, I think Moses was circumcised. Pharaoh's daughter knew that he was a son of the Hebrews when she found him in the basket floating in the water. Ex. 2:7 says, "when she had opened it, she saw the child: and, behold, the babe wept. And she had compassion on him, and said, This is one of the Hebrews' children." Agape

Incoming email

Re: The ten virgins.
I trust all is well with you. I have been reading your site for a few years now, and greatly admire your dedication to the Word. I have been under the ministry of Bob Thieme in Houston for some thirty years now, and a great deal of what you write lines up with my understanding. But one major difference I take issue with is your interpretation of the ten virgins in Matthew 24.

A great deal of the New Testament, particularly the writings of Paul, have to do with the devine institution of marraige. It is the most important of human relationships. Col. Thieme has taught literally thousands of hours over the last ten years on the subject, because by understanding the marital relationship, we better understand our relationship with the Lord.

And thus my problem with your assumptions about the ten virgins. Why would the author of the Bible, and the inventor of marraige itself, use a blatantly immoral example to teach us about the rapture and our relationship with him? A groom coming to marry five out of ten virgins is poligamy. It is at odds with everything the Bible has to say about the institution. I know that you have devoted much time to Bible study. So you should be better able than most of us to answer this question. In all the parables our Lord taught, did he once portray himself as a character behaving contrary to the teaching of scripture? If our Lord was trying to make the point of choosing one bride over another, wouldn't he have used wise virgin (singular) and foolish virgin (again, singular)? I think his choice of words insures that faithful Christians who rightly divide the word, who are fully aware of God's policy on marraige, will not missinterpret these verses. He didn't say he was coming to pick out five eligible virgins to marry them. He said he was taking them with him to his wedding. We can't dismiss this argument out of hand. One of two things has to be true about this passage. Either the Kingdom is one where the groom can take as many as five brides and violate his own prohibitions, or the virgins are exactly what this passage says they are: Those who the groom takes with him as personal guests to his wedding, and those he doesn't.

I believe that this passage does deal with multiple raptures. But it's the pre-wrath second rapture that's in view here. And it will include primarily believing Jews from the tribulation. Let's not lose track of the fact that Israel was the Lord's first choice of a bride. When he came for them 2000 years ago, they not only rejected him, they murdered him. I think it's amazingly gracious of our Lord to keep them on the guest list. Keep up the good work. In Christ

My reply

Thanks for your kind words. We felt some better today since we got a break from heat that went to 108. I hate that kind of heat. We awoke to see fog this morning, what they call the marine layer had blown inland. We said, "Thank you Lord."

> > A groom coming to marry five out of ten virgins is poligamy. It is at odds with everything the Bible has to say about the institution.

Didn't Jacob have 2 wives? Didn't the Lord espouse all Israel at Sinai (Jer. 2:2)? Didn't Paul say "unto the church of God which is at Corinth" (II cor. 1:1) , "I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you AS a chaste virgin to Christ" (II Cor. 11:2). The words "like" or "as" are symbolic language. "AS" here shows us that this picture is symbolic. I believe that the wise virgins are the Bride of Christ and the foolish virgins the rest of the Body of Christ.

In Rev. 14:4,5, the 144,000 Israelites are also "virgins" and therefore of the Bride group, even though caught up in the 2nd Rapture. Jacob served 7 years for Leah and 7 years for Rachel. I have wondered if those correlate with the 7 good years and the 7 bad years here at the end of this age. We will probably find out soon.

Rev. 21:9-11 depicts "the bride, the Lamb's wife" in New Jerusalem. On the gates are the names of the 12 tribes of Israel. On the wall are the names of the 12 apostles. I believe the 12 patriarchs and the 12 apostles are the elders of Rev. 4:4. They represent the whole group "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" of Rev. 5:9 that is the Bride of Christ.

> > He didn't say he was coming to pick out five eligible virgins to marry them. He said he was taking them with him to his wedding.

Would the Bridegroom come and NOT take his Bride with him, only attendants?

> > Either the Kingdom is one where the groom can take as many as five brides and violate his own prohibitions, or the virgins are exactly what this passage says they are: Those who the groom takes with him as personal guests to his wedding, and those he doesn't.

Are you and I both members of the Bride of Christ? or do you think the Lord will choose one of us and leave the other one behind? The Bride is a corporate body, not one single person. Thank God we can both be members of the Bride of Christ.

> > it's the pre-wrath second rapture that's in view here. And it will include primarily believing Jews from the tribulation.

If this was the 2nd Rapture, the 5 foolish virgins would not be caught up at all. The Pre-Wrath Rapture is the "last trump" (I Cor. 15:52). To me, it has to be the 1st Rapture, and the foolish virgins are caught up the 2nd time. They call Christ Lord, and will be kept from wrath. Mt. 25 follows 24:51, where some are cut off at the first Rapture, just as they are in Lu. 12:46. It says, "The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder (lit., cut him off, i.e., spue him out of his mouth, Rev. 3:16), and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers" (during the shortened Tribulation). Agape

   Pro and Con 602   Or Return   Home


Contact me for more information at: mjagee@pe.net


Send me e-mail now


8641 Sugar Gum Rd, Riverside, CA 92508, USA; (909) 653-4110


© 1996-2000, Marilyn J. Agee
Updated 6-20-00