The "Ransom Sacrifice" short version.

by Norm 103 Replies latest jw friends

  • JanH
    JanH

    Java,

    It is of course an interesting thought; "what if God was evil?" It is true that the argument from evil which generally demolishes classic theism does not help to disprove a less-than-good deity or even a slightly incometent deity.

    Gnostics actually teaches that this universe was created by an evil (or stupid) demiurge called Yaldabaot, which corresponds to the evil old testament Yahweh. They do of course deny that this being is worthy of any worship. The real God to them, the Father of Lights, is as far removed from this demiurge as they can possibly make him. They will eventually run into the same problem with theodicy as classical theism, but since there are few gnostics around, there is little reason to run this argument to its conclusion.

    Yet, I really see no reason to come up with arguments against a form of deity that nobody seems to believe in. First, I think most will agree that an evil god is not worthy of any worship. Second, neither can we expect any comfortable afterlife from this deity. Even if this god should promise such a thing, we would have no reason to believe it and no way of enforcing the bargain if he should go back on it (as he likely would). Sucha deity is for all intents and purposes uninteresting.

    Finally, there is no reason to believe that such a deity, or any deity, exists. Theism exists only as a nostalgic throwback to primitive times, when people needed supernatural beliefs to understand nature. Today we should not need to believe in ghosts, fairies or deities, since there is no evidence for such things.

    - Jan
    --
    "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
    -- Albert Einstein

  • ianao
    ianao

    Hey aChristian:

    (I assume that since you ... My point is that just because a certain type of behavior seems to come "natural" to animals, or even to people for that matter, does not make it right.

    Ok, so your opinion is that it isn't right (because God said so). I would be very interested in hearing the opinion of someone who DOES have that extra Y chromosome(SP!) in their DNA comment on this issue.

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    Jan wrote: Finally, there is no reason to believe that such a deity, or any deity, exists.

    To this I respectfully say, "Bunk!" For the fact is, many world renowned scientists, Christian and non-Christian, theist and non-theist, disagree with Jan.

    I am here providing a link to the web site of an organization called Reasons To Believe. This organization is run by a Christian astronomer named Dr. Hugh Ross. Ross is no kook or "fundy." He is a highly respected scientist who is greatly vilified by many "fundy" Christian organizations. For he believes in a very old universe and earth, evolution and a local flood. This link will take you to an article written by him entitled "A Just Right Universe." It presents much evidence that our universe is the product of an intelligent designer. Ross has written several books dealing with this subject matter. The evidence Ross presents in this linked article is only a small fraction of the evidence he presents to this effect in his entire body of written work.

    In this linked article you will also find several quotes from non-Christian agnostic scientists admitting to the fact that much evidence of intelligent design exists in our universe. This evidence is considered to be quite credible by a growing number of scientists. Several of whom are quoted in this article by Ross. This article points out such things as this:

    In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Fred Hoyle discovered that an incredible fine tuning of the nuclear ground state energies for helium, beryllium, carbon, and oxygen was necessary for any kind of life to exist. The ground state energies for these elements cannot be higher or lower with respect to each other by more than 4% without yielding a universe with insufficient oxygen or carbon for life. Hoyle, who has written extensively against theism and Christianity in particular, nevertheless concluded on the basis of this quadruple fine tuning that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology." It goes on to tell us that: [Astronomer Paul] Davies has moved from promoting atheism to conceding that "the laws [of physics]... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design." He further testifies: "[This] is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all… It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.... The impression of design is overwhelming."

    You will find additional quotes by several other highly respected scientists to the same effect in the article posted at the following address, as well as much more information on this same subject matter in other articles which can be read at the same site. http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/creatorandthecosmos/catc14.html

  • rem
    rem

    Mike,

    If the universe was indeed designed for anything it would seem to be designed to hold large amounts of rocks. Rocks flourish in the universe, but life - as far as we know - only exists on a thin film on the crust of the planet earth. So far we have not observed any life in this universe, except for our home planet. In fact, the universe seems to be quite inhospitable to life as we know it, except for our planet - and not even the whole planet, but only certain parts of it.

    One would think that if the universe was fine-tuned for life, we would see a lot more of it everywhere. So far, it seems that we have evolved in spite of the universe's inhospitable design.

    Here is one of many articles that refutes Dr. Hugh Ross's assertions:

    http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html

    It is quite technical, though. Here is a more layman-friendly essay along the same lines:

    http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/anthro.skinq.html

    I personally don't see anything in the universe that has to be explained by a creator god. To me, such arguments have been unconvincing and seem to be borne out of some need or desire to believe in a creator god and give him the credit for what we observe around us.

    Respectfully,

    rem

  • GinnyTosken
    GinnyTosken

    Mike,

    Please forgive my lag in replying. I work three 12-hour days, Friday through Sunday, and am away from home and computer during these working weekends. However, it doesn’t appear that you’ve been pining away from loneliness without me.

    I did not say that all people who have common sense, who pray for God's help in understanding the Bible and do their best to put aside all of their preconceived notions while reading it would end up understanding all portions of scripture in the same way.

    Where did I say that you said this? I thought I simply asked some questions. Given the number of people who have tried prayerfully and sincerely to understand the Bible, why is there not more consensus as to its message? If God is trying to communicate a clear message, I’d think that over time that message would become apparent.

    So far as what you should do when you run across an apparent Bible contradiction, I would advise that you study the text in question and try to resolve the matter on your own. I believe that nearly all such Bible difficulties can be resolved with a little study by someone possessing the "common sense" I spoke of, provided that the person possessing that "common sense" actually wants to find an answer to their question and is not just trying to find apparent contradictions in the scriptures for the purpose of criticizing the Bible.

    I am willing to overlook the little niggling contradictions. What bothers me most is that I cannot piece the three synoptic gospels together in a cohesive whole. I thought I was very familiar with Jesus’ life story as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It wasn’t until after I left that I attempted to familiarize myself with his story directly from the sources. There are all sorts of difficulties. At what time did Jesus die? What were his last words? Who first saw him after his resurrection and when and where? From where did Jesus ascend into heaven? What did Judas do with the thirty pieces of silver? How did Judas die? Those are just a few of the problems that leap to mind.

    For instance, let's take the apparent contradiction you have run across. Most people who have read the four gospels know that Jesus Christ's bold claims for himself, along with his authoritative style of teachings, made him a very polarizing personality. People either loved Jesus or they hated him. It was not long after Jesus began his ministry that people divided into two camps. People quickly became either supporters of Jesus Christ or opposers of Jesus Christ. Thus if people were not with Jesus they were against him. And if people were not against Jesus and his disciples they were for Jesus and his disciples.

    Again, this is black or white thinking. Life would be very tidy if people actually behaved like this. I find it hard to believe that all of the people who knew Jesus fell into either a love or hate category, that there weren’t a group of people who weren’t quite sure, who were undecided. I looked over the accounts again, to see if the response was either love or hate. I wonder about a few people. For example, what about Pilate? He appears to have believed that Jesus was innocent. He handed Jesus over to be crucified not because he hated the man, but because he wanted to prevent a riot and please the crowds. He was not against Jesus, but he wasn’t really for him, either.

    What about Peter, who denied Jesus three times? He surely loved Jesus, but at that moment wasn’t for him.

    If you forgive Peter for what he did, what about Judas? Was he only a momentary pawn of Satan? Mark 27:3 says that Judas repented and said, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” Was Judas for Jesus or against him? Did he love him or hate him?

    When I first got on the Net I had many E-mail conversations with Bible critics. They would usually first present me with two or three so-called "Bible contradictions." They would tell me that if I could help them resolve those few "contradictions" then they might be able to seriously consider what the Bible has to say about Jesus Christ. But after I clearly showed them that the "Bible contradictions" they had presented me were really not contradictions at all they only threw more of such "contradictions" at me. And so it went. . . . Lately I have limited myself to discussing only one supposed "Bible contradiction" per post or E-mail.

    I see that I did not read the fine print of your discussion contract.

    You don’t directly accuse me of anything in this paragraph, but your words subtly imply that I might perhaps be like these other Bible critics with whom you’ve had discussions. I am not looking for help in resolving contradictions, nor am I playing games with you. I have questioned you because I would like to understand how you make sense of these things. When I discovered that Jehovah’s Witnesses had lied about many things and did not have a corner on the market of Bible interpretation, I did not dump the Bible and Christianity. I still believed in loving your neighbor as yourself, in being kind and unselfish, and in a future reward. I was sure the Bible could be understood apart from Jehovah’s Witnesses and worked toward that end for many years.

    I could not ignore the lessons I’d learned from wrestling with my Jehovah’s Witness beliefs. I had trusted the Governing Body implicitly. I had to learn to ask, “From where do they get their authority to speak for God? How do I know that what they say is true?” Christianity is intimately tied to the Bible. How do we know that what it says is true? Do these writers speak for God? While I still respect these writers for sharing their experience in searching for God and their understanding of him, I do not believe they speak for God. I do not believe that God behaved in the way they portray him or for the motivations they attribute to him, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures. This was underscored when I realized how very many inconsistencies and errors there are in the Bible.

    He does. "For God has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." (Col. 1:13,14)

    Yes, God forgives, as long as there is shedding of blood. (Heb. 9:22) How very big of him!

    Sadly, it seems that for many people discussing the Bible with Christians is only a game. Quite often it seems the only real object of the game is to have fun poking and jabbing Christians. A similar but much more deadly version of this game was often played in ancient Rome.

    To me, this is the most interesting part of your reply. When you responded initially to Norm’s post, you saw this discussion as an opportunity to share the good news of Jesus Christ. Now you imply that you feel you’ve been thrown to the lions. It’s very odd since, first of all, you are here by choice. If your beliefs are a personal matter and you choose not to discuss them publicly, I’m sure everyone on this board would respect your wishes. Secondly, if supposed Bible contradictions are as innocuous as you say, then these questions should be mere mosquitoes to be swatted, not anything as frightening or dangerous as lions.

    Some Christians seem to forget that “giving a witness” means not only giving testimony, but also being cross-examined.

    Ginny

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    Dear Ginny,

    You wrote: If God is trying to communicate a clear message, I’d think that over time that message would become apparent.

    It has. The message preached by Christians for nearly 2,000 years is the same one preached by Paul and the other apostles. And it is very simple and very clear. Paul said, "We preach Christ crucified." In fact, Paul said that in his ministry he had "resolved to know nothing" "except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Cor. 1:23, 2:2) The message the apostles preached, and that Christians have always preached, is that if people will only believe in their hearts that Jesus Christ's sacrificial death was a sufficient payment for all their sins, God will forgive them completely for all of their unrighteousness, and He will then give them the gift of eternal life.

    You wrote: I am willing to overlook the little niggling contradictions. What bothers me most is that I cannot piece the three synoptic gospels together in a cohesive whole. I thought I was very familiar with Jesus’ life story as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It wasn’t until after I left that I attempted to familiarize myself with his story directly from the sources. There are all sorts of difficulties. At what time did Jesus die? What were his last words? Who first saw him after his resurrection and when and where? From where did Jesus ascend into heaven? What did Judas do with the thirty pieces of silver? How did Judas die? Those are just a few of the problems that leap to mind.

    All of which have been resolved long ago and are all explained quite well in books such as When Critics Ask, by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason Archer. These books can be purchased at most Christian book stores or checked out of many Church libraries.

    You wrote: I find it hard to believe that all of the people who knew Jesus fell into either a love or hate category, that there weren’t a group of people who weren’t quite sure, who were undecided.

    Obviously, when Jesus spoke the words we are here discussing he was speaking in very general terms. People sometimes do that. Certainly there were exceptions to his sweeping statements. Certainly Jesus knew that there were people on earth who had not yet decided if they were for or against him. But, most likely, at the time Jesus made such statements, judging from the crowds' reactions to him, you would hardly know it.

    You wrote: Yes, God forgives, as long as there is shedding of blood. (Heb. 9:22) How very big of him!

    You scoff at this idea. Maybe you do so because you don't understand the message of Christianity. Or maybe you just consider it foolishness. In case you fail to understand why, in Old Testament times, God required the shedding of animal blood for the temporary forgiveness of sins, and ultimately Jesus Christ's own death for the total and permanent forgiveness of our sins, I will here explain it to you.

    Why did God require the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins in Old Testament times? Christians believe it was to emphasize the fact that sin is responsible for death. And we believe God did so to point forward to the time when he would give the life of his own son in order to offer all of us his forgiveness for all of our sins, and along with his forgiveness also offer us eternal life.

    You see, God's standards are very high. He long ago decreed that only those who are perfectly righteous are worthy of eternal life. Of course, this meant that God had in effect also decreed that all who are not perfectly righteous must die. But despite God's extremely high standards, like many loving parents, God has always wanted to give his children more than they deserve.

    So, God was confronted with a dilemma. On one hand, he had already decreed that only those who are perfectly righteous are deserving of eternal life. Thus he had, in effect, demanded that a very high price be paid for billions of unrighteous human lives. That price was billions of eternal human deaths. On the other hand, God wanted to give every human being the gift of eternal life, even though none of us deserved it, and even though his own high standards prohibited him from giving us that gift. But fortunately for us all, God found a way to offer all of us the gift of eternal life without violating his own high standards pertaining to who is deserving of that gift.

    The Bible tells us that God did this by allowing his only begotten son to pay for the unrighteousness of billions of human beings with his own life. But how could God consider only one death, a death which only lasted from Friday afternoon until the following Sunday morning, to have equal or greater value than many billions of human deaths, deaths which would last forever? He could do so because he considered the three days of life which his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, gave up to be more valuable than many billions of eternal human lives. Why? Because God knew that Jesus Christ was far more than a human being. God also knew that Jesus Christ was far more than "a perfect human being," or "Adam's equal" as some of the cults like to call him. God knew that Jesus Christ, as his only begotten son, was also God. And because Jesus Christ was also God, his father considered his death, and his three lost days of life which followed his death, to be worth far more than many billions of eternal human lives.

    God's requiring the life of his own Son to pay for our sins was not an example of some kind of "primitive thinking," as some contend. No, it was an example of God's perfect justice, his great mercy and his amazing love. For the Bible tells us that God loves us all so much that he was willing to buy us all eternal life, even though to do so he had to pay for it "with his own blood." (Acts 20:28)

    You wrote: Now you imply that you feel you’ve been thrown to the lions.

    I'm sorry if my comments gave you the impression I was comparing anyone here to lions. I was actually referring to some I have discussed the Bible with in the past. As I said, "When I first got on the Net." All here have actually treated me quite well.

    Mike

  • JanH
    JanH

    Hi Mike,

    First, allow me to use the opportunity to say I greatly respect you. As many will know, I have argued with many totally dishonest xtian apoplogists on H2O and elsewhere, and am glad to have found you very different. Your form of Christianity is also a much more appealing and ethical one, and i'm sure none of this is a conincidence.

    Now, allow me to tell you why you are wrong

    Jan wrote: Finally, there is no reason to believe that such a deity, or any deity, exists.

    Allow me to clarify. Clearly people can have personal reasons for belief in anything. I used "reason" in a quite limited meaning here, one requiring a sound logical argument supporting theism. And I reiterate that no such thing exist.

    To this I respectfully say, "Bunk!" For the fact is, many world renowned scientists, Christian and non-Christian, theist and non-theist, disagree with Jan.

    That may be true. But it is an argument from authority. While one should always be willing to listen carefully to relevant experts, the say-so of even the foremost of experts do not make a solid argument. As Einstein eventually found out, God does play dice with the universe. Arguments stand and fall on their own merit, regardless of who states these arguments. And I will show why the arguments for theism that you refer to are faulty.

    The argument from the "Just Right" universe seems to catch on among some "design" creationists, and I find that puzzling. The faults of this argument is so apparent that I suspect that the emotional desires of these scholars who support them may have lead them to lower their intellectual guards to accept a story that, so to say, tickled their ears.

    The argument is usually called the "anthropic principle", and exists in several forms. This principle, hotly contested, states that the universe must be in such a state that it at least in some of its history can allow life to develop. It follows, some theoriets argued, from the seemingly remarkable coincidences in the makeup of the universe, withiut which life as we know it could not develop.

    Indeed, even if it was accepted as it stands, the anthropic principle can mean different things:

    1) Theists interpret it to mean that this is the only universe, and it was designed with the purpose of ultimately hosting the life we currently find on planet Earth.

    2) That the universe only exists because observers are here to see it. This is a common new age belief. It is a form of solipsism; new agers have misunderstood certain aspects of quantum mechanics they sometimes state to support this idea.

    3) That there is a multitude of universes, some of which allow life and others that do not. We happen to live in one that does. Many well-renowed modern cosmologists have come to speculate about this in all seriousness. It actually seems to follow from some of the equations describing quantum mechanics that every time a basic particle can go zing or zang, the universe actually splits in two, one for each possible state. Mind-boggling, indeed, but almost certainly impossible to ever disprove or prove.

    If we ditch version (2) above, we remain with one interpretation that seems to lend support to theism (1) and one which does not in any meaningful sense support the argument of theists (3).

    There are a number of more or less hidden premises in the anthropic argument from theism. One is that the different parameters are indeed random and are not in fact guided by a fundamental principle in the order of things. For example, Fred Hoyle's famous discovery of an excited state of carbon at 7.66 MeV sparked much interest in the 'anthropic principle' argument. It does not follow from the axioms of the theory. But is it really certain that it just as well could have been, say, 5.2 MeV, which would not allow Life As We Know It? Maybe. But maybe not. No cosmologist have actually demonstrated as fact that any value for all these "constants" would indeed be as likely as any other, or indeed that any universe could develop at all based on different values. The claim seems to be unfalsifiable, and that is a serious charge, because it pushes it outside the realm of science.

    Another premise, which is just as problematic, is that it deals merely with Life As We Know It. It asserts, without good evidence, that life cannot possibly exist in any (or many of) the many theoretical universes where the fine-tuning was different. What design creationists fear, with good reason, is to be dismissed because the mix up cause an effect.Of course life in this universe must exist in a form that is compatible with the physical laws we have. How could it not? We, life as we know it, is compatible with this universe precisely because this is where we originated. But who can guarantee that life forms we cannot even imagine could not possibly have existed in these alternative universes?

    These flaws in the argument from design are serious enough, but actually, they only scratch the surface of the massive problems this argument suffers from.

    One begins to suspect quite early that this "design" argument is merely a slighly modernized and repainted version of the old and famous "watchmaker analogy". I have earlier pointed out the serious flaws this argument suffers from, and it should not be a surprise that this modern version has retained some of the same weaknesses. The watchmaker argument has a built-in weakness of serious proportions, and this has always been the major problem with the design argument: if the fantastic properties of nature could only exist if it was created by a wise Designer, what then about the even more fantastic Designer himself? Would not the argument require a Super-Designer that was even more powerful, and so on, with an eternal regress of Designer-Designers? Indeed it would. So the only rational conclusion is that the one entity we know about, the universe, does not require a designer, even though it may appear (to some) to do so.

    The same is true about the 'anthropic principle' design argument. Theists have pointed out countless properties of this universe without which Life As We Know It could not exist. Fair enough. But what about the proposed Designer? Would not this designer need to have an even more impressive array of qualities, that 'coincidentally' corresponds to what a designer of our specific universe would need? Theists often talk about God's wisdom, ability to plan, immense power, timelessness, love, compassion, etc, etc, that are manifest and evident, they say, in this universe. Obviously, we can imagine countless different universe-designers, many of which have all sorts of odd combination of different qualities in this Designer, few of which would create the Universe we know. Thus, it follows that this Designer was himself designer by a Supreme Designer-Designer. And so on ad infinitum.

    The most serious flaw in the argument by design is actually mentioned in Hugh Ross' summary of counter-arguments on the page at http://www.reasons.org/resources/books/creatorandthecosmos/catc14.html Ross formulates it this way "We would not be here to observe the universe unless the extremely unlikely did take place." Indeed, this begs the question whether it was so unlikely after all, but let's leave this aside for now.

    It is a fundamental principle of science that a theory that describes a phenomenon must be falsifiable, that is, there must be (theoretical) observations that would disprove the theory if it is wrong. More generally, it is a principle that a theory that explains everything explains nothing. That means, that if there are no theoretical observations that cannot be accounted for by the theory, then it has no predictive power and is effectively useless.

    A theory that should try to prove that this universe is created by an intelligent Designer, must follow such rules. It must be possible to postulate a universe not created by a Designer, and then explain how this universe differs from the universe we have. It would then follow, if the arguments were sound, that ours was a universe created by an Intelligent Designer.

    But the problem is, that by definition such a universe would be one without life, since it could not possibly sustain life. The argument is thus demonstrated to be pitifully circular, since the conclusion (that life is designed) is already smuggled into the hidden premises of the argument.

    Thus, in any theoretical universe, even one that was the result of only natural processes, the inhabitants could think up the Design Argument and apply it. And they could just as well be wrong. Thus, the argument fails even the most basic test by not having any predictive power whatsoever.

    (I'll leave out answering carefully the totally ridiculous sharpshooter-'rebuttal' that Ross borrows from Craig. It is merely an analogy that has nothing to do with the subject at hand since 1) the participants are intelligent agents in the first place, and 2) the rules they follow are known, unlike the rules that creates universes.)

    I will also point out one serious flaw of the design argument based on the athropic principle. I will argue that the weak anthropic principle (set out in the beginning) in fact is more compatible with naturlism than supernaturalism. The argument goes like this: the universe is in a form that is friendly to the development of life as we know it. But why, if the cause of Life is indeed a supernatural agent we usually call God, should we expect the universe to be naturally hospitable to life? A superhuman agent, in particular an omnipotent one, does not need the universe to be hospitable to life. Indeed, design theorists have pointed out that life as we know it consists of matter in the form of e.g. carbon, which is naturally created by supernova explosions. We are indeed star matter. But if God created life, why should he go through this elaborate process requiring billions of years? There is no good reason for this. God could just as well used creation by fiat in the sense that young earth creationists believe in (and then, the facts would support this).

    Actually, the anthropic principle seems to be a better argument against theism than for it.

    - Jan
    --
    "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"
    -- Albert Einstein

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    Jan,

    Thank you for your kind words and for your well thought out and well written reply. Upon thorough consideration of your various rebuttal arguments I now agree with much of what you wrote concerning many aspects of the "evidence of a Creator from apparent design" argument.

    However, I take issue with some of what you said. For instance, you wrote, "If the fantastic properties of nature could only exist if it was created by a wise Designer, what then about the even more fantastic Designer himself? Would not the argument require a Super-Designer that was even more powerful, and so on, with an eternal regress of Designer-Designers? Indeed it would. So the only rational conclusion is that the one entity we know about, the universe, does not require a designer, even though it may appear (to some) to do so."

    Those making this argument fail to keep in mind the fact that we know our universe had a beginning. Our universe began with a Big Bang some 12 - 20 billion years ago. Thus, since we know our universe had a beginning, it is fair to suggest that it may have had a "beginner." However, if it did, it is not possible that the Creator of our universe had a beginning. For science tells us that time is only a dimension of our physical universe. And they tell us that time did not begin until our physical universe began. Thus, if our universe was created by a Creator, it must have been created by a Creator who existed before time began, or completely outside of the dimension of time. If this is the case, such a Creator could not have had a beginning. For any beginning occurs at some point in time. Interestingly, this is the type of Creator the Bible tells us that our universe had. The Bible identifies Jesus Christ as the Creator of our universe. (Colossians 1:16,17) And it describes His origins as being "from everlasting," and "from the days of eternity." (Micah 5:2 KJV, NAS)

    You wrote: It is a fundamental principle of science that a theory that describes a phenomenon must be falsifiable ... It must be possible to postulate a universe not created by a Designer, and then explain how this universe differs from the universe we have. It would then follow, if the arguments were sound, that ours was a universe created by an Intelligent Designer.

    I believe doing so is possible. A universe not created by a Designer would not have signs in the sky over the only planet now known to be inhabited by intelligent life clearly telling all of its inhabitants, in an internationally recognizable language, "This entire universe was created by Jesus Christ."

    As you may recall, I contend that not only did Jesus Christ create our universe but that He, in effect, "signed" His name "in the sun, moon and stars" to all of His cosmic creations. And I contend that He did so in a way that not only identifies Himself as their Creator, but also identifies Himself as our Savior. To support these contentions I offer the following evidence, evidence which I believe clearly connects the Jesus Christ of Scripture with the design, and thus the designer, of our universe.

    1. The Bible often uses the # 40 in connection with highly significant people and events.

    Most readers of Scripture are aware that the Bible often makes special use of the # 40. Rain fell from the sky for "40 days and 40 nights" causing the flood of Noah's day. (Genesis 7:11,12) Moses was on Mount Sinai communicating with God on two separate occasions, each time for "40 days and 40 nights." (Exodus 24:18; 34:28) Afterwards the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for "40 years" before entering the land God had promised them. (Numbers 32:13; Joshua 23:5) The first three kings of Israel, Saul, David and Solomon, each ruled for "40 years." (Acts 13:21; 1Kings 2:10,11; 11:42) Jonah, best known for spending "three days and three nights" in the belly of "a great fish", was ordered by God to prophesy that the city of Nineveh would be overthrown in "forty more days".(Jonah 1:17; 3:1-4) Before beginning His ministry Jesus fasted for "40 days and 40 nights."(Luke 4:1,2) These are only a few of the times the Bible uses the # 40 in a prominent way.

    2. The # 40 was meant to point to Jesus Christ.

    It is my belief that the # 40 was used so often and so prominently in the Bible for the purpose of directing our attention to Jesus Christ. Like the 40 days of rain which washed away all wickedness from the land in Noah's day, Christ's coming was prophesied to also be "like showers watering the earth." For, like the rains which cleansed the land in the days of Noah, the Bible tells us that the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ "cleanses us from all sin." (Genesis 6:11-17; Psalms 72:6; 1John 1:7)

    As Moses mediated the Old Covenant between God and the Israelites during 40 day periods of time, Jesus Christ now acts as the Mediator of the New Covenant which He, by His death, established with Christians.(Exodus 19:3-9; Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 8:6; 9:15)

    As the Israelites wandered aimlessly in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years prior to the time God gave them their promised land, all mankind was lost in a spiritual wilderness before God gave us our promised Savior.(Luke 19:10)

    As Saul, who ruled for 40 years, was Israel's first king, Jesus Christ is "the First and the Last" "King" of "the Israel of God." (Revelation 1:17; 1Timothy 6:15; Galatians 6:16)

    Long after David Had ruled Israel for 40 years Isaiah prophesied that the promised Savior, Jesus Christ, would "reign on David's throne and over his kingdom." For this reason Jesus was called "the son of David."(Isaiah 9:6,7; Luke 1:32; Matthew 1:1)

    Many spiritual connections can be found in the Bible between Solomon, who ruled all Israel for 40 years, and Jesus Christ. Solomon, for instance, built God's Temple in Jerusalem. While Jesus Christ built God's spiritual Temple.(1Kings 6:1-38; Matthew 16:15-18; 1Corinthians 3:11,16) For this reason, and others, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ is "greater than Solomon."(Matthew 12:42)

    The spiritual connection between Jonah, who prophesied that Nineveh would be overthrown in "40 more days,” and Jesus Christ was firmly established by Jesus Himself. For He said, “as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish," so Christ would "be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth,” after His death and before His resurrection.(Matthew 12:40)

    Just before He began His ministry Jesus Christ fasted for 40 days. At the end of those 40 days "He was hungry." And so were those who had been eagerly anticipating the arrival of mankind's long awaited Savior. For their "hunger" had been "for righteousness", a hunger which only Jesus Christ could satisfy, and a righteousness which only Jesus Christ Himself could give them.(Matthew 4:2; 5:6; John 6:35; Romans 3:21,22)

    3. Just as the biblical # 40 points to Jesus Christ, so do the biblical #s 4 and 400

    The #s 4 and 40 can both easily be seen as abbreviated forms of the # 400. It is not surprising then to find that the Bible also uses the #s 4 and 400 in the same way that it does the # 40, to point to Jesus Christ.

    For instance, in regard to the # 4, the Bible's creation account tells us that the sun, moon and stars first appeared in earth's skies on the 4th creative day. And the Bible, which tells the story of Jesus Christ in 4 "gospels", connects this 4th "day" of creation with Jesus Christ by calling Him "the light of the world."(Genesis 1:14-19; John 8:12)

    One well known example of the Bible's use of the # 400 involves the period of time that Abraham's descendants were "enslaved and oppressed" before being set free from their bondage in Egypt. The Bible tells us that period of time was "400 years." The Bible also says that, much like the Israelites, all mankind had once been enslaved and oppressed for a long period of time. However, this slavery and oppression was by sin and death, from which, the Bible tells us, Jesus Christ came to set us free. We are told Christ did so by buying with His own life both God's forgiveness and immortality for all who will accept Him as their Lord.(Genesis 15:13; Matthew 20:28; Luke 4:18; Ephesians 1:7; John 3:16; 1Corinthians 15:54) Interestingly, the Bible tells us that the Israelites' 400 years of oppression and slavery came to an end immediately following a plague in which God took the life of every firstborn son in Egypt. It also tells us that all mankind was offered freedom from the oppression and slavery of sin and death immediately following the death of God's Firstborn Son, Jesus Christ.(Exodus 11:4,5; Hebrews 11:28; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:5,6)

    A thorough examination of the Bible's symbolic use of the #s 4, 40 and 400 shows that the Bible always uses these #s to point to Jesus Christ.

    4. The # 400 which fills the Bible (often in abbreviated forms) for the purpose of directing attention to Jesus Christ also fills "the sun, moon and stars."

    The Sun and the Moon
    The sun's diameter is exactly 400 X the size of the moon's diameter. (864,000 mi. vs. 2,160 mi.) But remember, it makes no difference whether you measure their diameters in miles, meters or toothpicks. This 400 X ratio will always be the same. (1998 edition of The World Almanac, pages 290 and 291)

    The sun's distance from the earth is also always about 400 X greater than the moon's distance from the earth. And despite the fact that the earth and the moon both have elliptical orbits, this 400 X sun vs. moon distance ratio is exact twice every lunar month. (Dance Of The Planets, Version 2.71s, A.R.C. Science Simulation Software,1994)

    Solar Eclipses
    Because the moon's diameter is 1/400 the size of the sun's diameter and because the moon is 1/400 as far away from the earth as the earth is from the sun, the moon is precisely the correct size to cover the face of the sun as seen from the earth. It is because of this relationship, which the earth, sun and moon have with the # 400, that we are able to observe what has been called "the greatest spectacle in nature," a total eclipse of the sun. Consequently, when a total eclipse of the sun occurs, and the moon then covers the sun in the sky as perfectly as a lid fits its own jar, all who have a basic knowledge of astronomy have their attention immediately drawn to the # 400. ( See National Geographic, May 1992, page 41 )

    It is also interesting to note that, "The average time between total eclipse paths crossing one location (being able to observe a total eclipse of the sun from any one spot on earth) is about 400 years." (See The Sun - Our Star, Robert W. Noyes, 1982, page 145)

    The Stars of our Galaxy
    Carl Sagan, in his books Cosmos (1980, page 299) and The Demon Haunted World (1995, page 330), estimated the # of stars in our galaxy at "400 billion."

    The Galaxies of our Universe
    Astronomers also tell us that it is possible that the # of galaxies in our universe may actually equal the # of stars in our galaxy.(See The Left Hand Of Creation: The Origin And Evolution Of The Expanding Universe, John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk, 1983, Page 25)

    5. These cosmic 400s serve as "signs" directing our attention to Jesus Christ.

    I believe that God was referring to these 400s in the sun, moon and stars when He spoke the words recorded in Genesis 1:14. There we are told God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years."(New American Standard Bible) I am also convinced that Jesus Christ was referring to these astronomical 400s when He said, "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars." (Luke 21:25) And I believe that Jesus spoke of these same cosmic 400s, when He told us,"The sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky."(Matthew 24:30)

    Keep in mind that the Greek word then used by Christ, which is translated into English as "appear", according to An Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words by W.E.Vine, refers not just to what appears to the eye, but also to "what appears to the mind." It should also be here noted that Jesus Christ often used the title "the Son of Man" when referring to Himself. This was an obvious reference to the prophet Daniel's well known and powerful Messianic prophecy.(Daniel 7:13,14)

    Since the # 400, and abbreviated forms thereof, fills both our sky and the Bible, it seemed reasonable to this reader of Scripture to at least consider the possibility that if a Supreme Being designed and created the universe, that same Supreme Being may have also inspired the Bible. After considering this possibility I became convinced of something even more compelling. For I now firmly believe that the Creator of the Universe incorporated the # 400, and abbreviated forms thereof, into both His cosmic creations and into His Word the Bible for the specific purpose of personally identifying Himself as Jesus Christ.

    How do the #s 400, 40 and 4 personally identify Jesus Christ as both the Creator of the Universe and the God of the Bible? They do so because they are short forms, or sign forms, of the # 4000, the exact # of years that passed between the creation of Adam and the earthly birth of Jesus Christ, according to the Bible's own very precise chronological, historical record. Serving as "signs" of the exact time of His birth, the #s 400, 40 and 4 were, I believe, meant by Jesus Christ to remind us of Himself in much the same way that many people are now reminded of the United States of America when they hear someone mention the year of that nation's birth, 1776.

    And because these long and short form "signs" of Jesus Christ, in effect His signature and His initials, fill "the sun, moon and stars" and the Bible, we have strong reason to believe that He is the Author of both.

    Why would Jesus Christ choose to identify Himself with # signs representing the time of His earthly birth as counted from the time of Adams creation? For two reasons. First, because it was in Eden, Adam's garden home, that God first promised to send mankind a Savior.(Gen. 3:15) And second, because from the time of Adam an elaborate chronological, historical record was kept, which has been preserved in the Bible, that we can now use to confirm the time of Christ's birth, as counted from the time of Adam's creation.

    Please do not misunderstand me. I am certainly not suggesting that human beings have been on earth for only 6,000 years (4,000 years from Adam to Christ plus another 2,000 years from Christ to the present). For paleontologists, anthropologists and archcheologists all assure us that mankind has lived on earth far longer than 6,000 years. And I believe them.

    6. Was Adam the "first" Man?

    This seeming conflict between Bible chronology and well established human history is easily resolved by understanding that the Bible does not tell us that Adam was, in an absolute chronological sense, "the first man." I believe that God simply used Adam, and orchestrated the events in Eden, to illustrate the unrighteous condition of all mankind.

    The only place in Scripture Adam is referred to as the "first" man is in 1 Cor.15:45-47. There Adam is called "the first man." But there we also find that Jesus is called "the second man." The context shows that the writer of those words was referring to Adam as the "first" man only in his relative chronological position to Christ. In other words, since Adam came "first" and Christ came "second," Adam came before Christ.

    Traditional thinking Christians will no doubt also raise other objections to this understanding of Scripture. I am fully prepared to answer any and all such objections. However, to do so here would detract from the subject at hand, evidence of the Christian God.

    7. 4,000 years from Adam to Christ

    With this understanding of Scripture in mind, we have no reason to insist that Adam was the first man. For, as we have seen, the Bible does not tell us that Adam was the first man in an absolute chronological sense. And since the Bible does not say that Adam was the first man who ever lived we have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Bible's chronological, historical record which tells us that Jesus Christ was born only 4,000 years after God created Adam.

    And, since the Bible's chronological, historical record tells us that Jesus Christ was born exactly 4,000 years after God created Adam, we have every reason to believe that the 400s, 40s and 4s which fill both our sky and the Bible do so for the purpose of personally identifying Jesus Christ as both The Creator of the Universe and The Savior of the World.

    8. Jesus Christ is "the light of the world."

    That Jesus Christ chose to put signs identifying Himself as our Creator and Savior into the sun, moon and stars, rather than into something else, like earth's land or sea, seems quite fitting. For Jesus Himself boldly declared, "I am the light of the world." (John 8:12) With this in mind it seems appropriate to here mention what I believe to be one more occurrence of "the sign of the Son of Man" in the sun and the moon. For "The Sun is 400 thousand times as bright as the full moon." (1998 edition of The World Almanac, page 290)

    9. God's design or unmatched coincidence?

    If I am wrong, and Jesus Christ did not put these #s into the Bible and into "the sun, moon and stars" to direct our attention to Himself as both our Creator and our Savior, then atheistic astronomers must be right. For they maintain that the relationship which the earth, sun and moon have with the biblical # 400 is simply "a coincidence unmatched in the solar system." See National Geographic May 1992, page 41)

    The thoughts here presented will be discussed in much greater depth and detail in a book I am now writing. It will contain a thorough study of both biblical history and ancient secular history. Together they will be shown to document the fact that exactly 4,000 years passed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Jesus Christ. This book is tentatively entitled The Sign Of The Son Of Man.

    Mike

  • JAVA
    JAVA

    JanH,

    It is true that the argument from evil which generally demolishes classic theism does not help to disprove a less-than-good deity or even a slightly incometent deity.

    Yes, that's where I was going with the argument. It's doesn't take a rocket scientist to read the Bible and see many episodes of morality clearly violated by God. Indeed, if the Bible is really the "Word of God," then God is getting away with murder--a concept Bible believers skirt with various scriptures or circular arguments. You correctly point out the "evil deity" theory doesn't disprove the deity theory, however, I wasn't going there.

    Finally, there is no reason to believe that such a deity, or any deity, exists. Theism exists only as a nostalgic throwback to primitive times, when people needed supernatural beliefs to understand nature. Today we should not need to believe in ghosts, fairies or deities, since there is no evidence for such things.

    Jungian theory might suggest the deity concept comes from the "Collective Unconscious," but there isn't much evidence in that bowl of pudding either. However, it's useful in explaining how some notions are carried on through time. Larc has a Ph.D in this field, perhaps he has some thoughts on Jung's idea.

    Maybe it's a JW-carry over, but I like the theory of an all-knowing deity. Just liking the concept doesn't make it so, and the biblical deity(ies) is not creditable (to me). Yet I come across things from time to time that's thought provoking, and feels like a spiritual read (or something of that sort). That doesn't prove anything, but it's fun exploring antique shops; walking out empty-handed isn't all bad either.

    --JAVA
    counting time at the Coffee Shop

  • waiting
    waiting

    Again, I'd like to applaud all contributors to this thread....fascinating and turning quite polite, always has been well worth the read and thinking necessary.

    However, I've got an Excedrin #400 headache from y'all.

    waiting - with much appreciation.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit