Popular Questions

[Webers_Home]

-
Hello; and welcome to a home-spun collection of common questions that
just everybody eventually wants to know.

Buen Camino
/
=====================================

How Long Was A Creation Day?

The Hebrew word for "day" is very ambiguous. For example; at Gen 2:4,
yowm encompasses the entire creation endeavor from start to finish.

In the past, no doubt most Bible scholars interpreted the phrase "evening
and morning" to indicate a 24-hour calendar day; but God began marking off
His days of creation with evenings and mornings before the sun even
existed; so I think it's pretty safe to rule the sun out as a time-keeping
mechanism relative to the days of creation.

According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the
sixth day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God
create land animals but the sixth. Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days
of creation were 24-hour calendar days in length; but the sciences have
easily proven that the Jurassic era was over and done several millions of
years prior to the entrance of truly human life.

So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent
epochs of indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.

In addition: I suggest that the expression "evening and morning" is simply a
convenient way to indicate the simultaneous wrap of one epoch and the
beginning of another.

When I was a little boy, my dad bet me that he could make a dollar bill
stand on edge. Well, I passed on the bet because I didn't own any money at
the time. So my dad proceeded to fold a dollar bill in half into a vee and it
easily stood on edge like that. When I protested, he replied: You didn't say I
couldn't fold it.

We have a really interesting museum in the Portland Oregon metro area
called OMSI with lots of interesting exhibits, a real Navy submarine (it had a
brief role in the movie Red October) and some brain-busting puzzles too.

One of the puzzles consists of maybe five large jig-saw looking wooden
pieces that when correctly arranged depict a jockey riding a horse. Try as I
might, I could not make those pieces come out right. Well, a museum
volunteer came by and asked me if I had tried stacking the pieces. I replied
by telling him that the instructions don't say I can stack the pieces. He
responded by asking me: Do the instructions say you can't stack the pieces
one on top of another? No, they don't, and that's the secret to the puzzle.
My mind assumed all the pieces had to be arranged side by side but in
reality, the instructions don't say one way or the other.

As a follow up to reinforce the reality of the human mind's propensity to
make assumptions; the volunteer told me he had two coins in his pocket
adding up to 55¢ and one of them wasn't a nickel. He then proceeded to
extract a half dollar and a nickel from his trouser pocket. When I protested
that he said one of the coins wasn't a nickel, he calmly replied: That would
be the half dollar. You see; he said "one" of the coins wasn't a nickel, rather
than neither coin. The volunteer then proceeded to lecture me on the
importance of paying attention to words and grammar.

Moral of the story: It's just as important to discern what words do say, as
well as discern what they don't say; thus avoiding false conclusions derived
from a so-called "argument from silence" a kind of logic which essentially
believes that if something isn't clearly stated, then it's inferred from the
silence that there was nothing to state.

It was a humiliating experience, but a valuable one too because in time; I
began applying that principle to the Bible in regards to what it does say, and
in regards to what it doesn't say; and one thing it does not say right from
the outset is that creation's six days were 24-hour calendar events; but
most of us assume the terms evening and morning insist upon it; when even
those terms are ambiguous. For example; when Jesus was here, a day
consisted of only 12 hours rather than 24 (John 11:9) which means that
when he was here, evening consisted of the hours between high noon and
sundown, while morning consisted of the hours between sunrise and high
noon. Why only daylight hours? Because at Gen 1:3-5 God decreed "day" as
a time of light, and "night" He decreed as a time of darkness.

This has been a chronic problem for just about everybody who takes Genesis
seriously. We assume the "days" of creation consisted of twenty-four hours
apiece; so we end up stumped when trying to figure out how to cope with
the 4.5 billion year age of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g.
Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and
the mass extinction events. It just never seems to occur to us that it might
be okay in some cases to go ahead and think outside the box. When we do
that-- when we allow ourselves to think outside the box --that's when we
begin to really appreciate the contributions science has made towards
providing modern men a window into the Earth's amazing past.

NOTE: If you haven't already seen it, I highly recommend watching History
Channel's two-season series titled: "How The Earth Was Made". The earth's
geological past, and its present, are just astounding. The series takes some
liberties here and there-- especially in its theories about the origin of the
blue planet's huge volume of water --but by and large, it's very informative;
and I believe quite useful to students of Genesis.

=====================================

What Is/Was The Light?

Light has several meanings and applications in the Bible; but the light that
most people question is the energy that God created in the very beginning.

†. Gen 1:1-3 . . In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of
the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Then God said "Let there be light" and there was light.

In the April 2014 edition of Discover magazine, astrophysicist/cosmologist
Avi Loeb states that the Bible attributes the appearance of stars and galaxies
to the divine proclamation "Let there be light". Is Mr. Loeb's statement
correct? No; of course not. God created the light on the first day of creation;
while glowing celestial objects weren't created until the fourth day.

Seeing as how law can be construed as light (Pro 6:23) then it's possible
that the light of Gen 1:3 refers to the laws of physics; without which it would
have been impossible for the creator to transform the formless earth of Gen
1:2 into a solid structure. Within that context, light can be thought of as the
power to bring order to chaos; and one of the very important laws of physics
is the law of gravity. Take away gravity and the entire universe would fly
apart in a moment.

The interesting thing about the laws of physics is that they have not always
existed. No; they are created laws-- created as a companion to the created
cosmos to regulate how the cosmos, with all of its forms of life, matter, and
energy, behaves.

An interesting aspect to creation's light is that according to 2Cor 4:6, it
wasn't introduced into the cosmos from outside in order to dispel the
darkness and brighten things up a bit; but rather, it radiated out of the
cosmos from inside; from itself; strongly suggesting that the cosmos'
elements had no energy of their own when God first made them; which
explains why the earth was formless and void in the beginning. "formless
and void" meaning that though all the earth's elements existed; they lacked
the necessary energy to bind themselves into cohesive unities. Everything
around us, including our very own selves, is held together by a mysterious
force called atomic attraction. Take that away and poof; you're gone in less
than sixty seconds.

Some Bible students regard science an enemy of religion; but I sincerely
believe that science and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary,
science and religion assist each other. Galileo believed that science and
religion are allies rather than enemies-- two different languages telling the
same story. There are well-meaning folk who prefer to keep science out of
the creation story. I truly believe that is an error because though the cosmos
has a supernatural origin, it is not a supernatural cosmos; rather, it is a very
natural cosmos and the creation story makes better sense, at least to me
anyway, when it's approached from that angle.

=====================================

 

[Webers_Home]

-
What Is The Image And Likeness Of God?

I've seen and heard plenty enough bombastic sophistry and rhetoric over the
years coming from people who sincerely think they know what "image and
likeness" means. Long story short: rather than follow their example; I prefer
to think of it as a status; which has some practical applications; for
example:

Gen 9:5-6 outlaws murder; not on the basis that its morally wrong, but
because men were created in the mage of God.

Jas 3:9 frowns upon cursing men; not on the basis that it's morally wrong;
but because men were created in the image of God.

I take it from those passages that were it not for the fact that Man was
created in the image of God, human life would be very cheap, and have no
more value than the dust of the Earth from which it was made. The image
and likeness of God is what lends human life a measure of dignity over and
above the remainder of His creations.

I rather think the image and likeness of God as in imputed status; sort of
like how the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers. In other words;
an imputed status is neither intrinsic nor deserved; it's freely given with no
strings attached and nothing asked in return. And don't belittle man's status.
It's pretty amazing seeing as how it's about as close to divine as a creature
can get without actually being biologically descended from God.

†. Ps 8:5 . .You have made man a little lower than the angels; and You have
crowned him with glory and honor.

The "glory and honor" spoken of in that Psalm is the image and likeness of
God; which glory and honor is something that Christian women are
supposed to memorialize by the act of covering their hair whenever they
pray and/or prophesy.

†. 1Cor 11:5-8 . . Every woman who has her head uncovered while praying
or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her
whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also
have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut
off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have
his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is
the glory of man.

The image and likeness of God speaks of God rather than some undefined
attribute; so be careful what you say about it! He isn't, as some call it, an
undefined attribute. In point of fact, He's a very high seat of power; and
quite a bit is known of Him even aside from the Bible.

†. Rom 1:18-21 . . For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
impiety and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them,
for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His
invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without
excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God,

†. Ps 19:1-4 . .The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the
work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night
they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is
not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of
the world.

If someone can study physics, biology, chemistry, geology, paleontology,
anthropology, cosmology, et al; and only see in those sciences an undefined
attribute; then I have to agree with Paul that they have even less common
sense than a Forrest Gump.

†. Rom 1:21-23 . . For although they knew God, they neither glorified him
as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their
foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they
became fools.

NOTE: According to 1Cor 11:5-8, Eve contributed zero improvements to the
Adam's image of God. In point of fact, the female is clearly said to be the
glory of the male; rather than the glory of God. The reason being that the
female wasn't created in the image of God from the dust of the earth as had
been the male; but rather, the female was manufactured from the male's
organic tissues; thus: the female was the male's first child, so to speak; and
in the Bible, children are always of a lesser glory than their parents.

Be careful about putting females up on a pedestal because that's the males'
place alone-- it is God's wishes that males not share it equally with females.

†. Gen 3:16 . . He shall rule over you.

†. 1 Tim 2:12-14 . . I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority
over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and
then Eve.

†. 1Cor 14:34-35 . . Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are
not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law
also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own
husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

=====================================

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Why Didn't Adam Drop Dead?

†. Gen 2:15-17 . .The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden
of Eden, to till it and tend it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying:
Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of
knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for in the day you eat of
it, you shall die.

Long story short: Adam didn't stop breathing on the day he tasted the
forbidden tree. In point of fact, he went on to engender Cain, Able, and
Seth-- living 800 years beyond the birth of Seth; having sons and daughters
along the way (Gen 5:4-5). What gives?

There's a theory going around called "spiritual death" that has become so
popular that it's now a cultural cliché. But there's no need to resort to
theories and sophistry. It's much easier, and far more practical, to just go
with the biological explanation.

Answer: Though he didn't drop dead that instant, Adam lost his perpetual
youth and began to age.

One morning years ago as I was looking in the mirror shaving getting ready
for work, I noticed that my once-thick hair was thinning; and upon closer
examination, I also noticed that my face was beginning to sag a bit and
there was the slightest hint of bags under my eyes. And then it hit me like
an icy wind that my youth was over and the aging process had kicked in. I
had become a dead-man-walking; and I was just 32. (That was back in
1976. You should see my face and hair now)

Death then, includes one's gradual debilitation; viz: death on the hoof.
Whereas in the beginning man's youth was perpetual; now he enjoys a
relatively brief shelf life before he loses his freshness and begins to spoil;
and from then on his remaining time on this globe can be defined as the
throes of a living death for which there is no known treatment except one:
the tree of life; and it's no longer available.

A pretty good illustration of the fatal effects of the aging process is one I
borrowed from the movie "Terminator" starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It
was said of a terminator that it can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned
with, it doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not stop--
ever! --until you are dead.

=====================================

 

[Enquirer]

I would like to point out that in the Greek the same word is used for both "woman" and "wife" - "gyne".
Knowing this helps to clarify the context when reading certain verses that mention "woman".
It must also be remembered that in those days the males were more educated than the females
and therefore, the guy's wife might ask what the preacher was talking about.

So Paul was saying that the "wife" (context) must be silent and rather ask her husband at home.
This is NOT a flat out prohibition on the female to NEVER say a word in Church.
Because if it was then you would have to get rid of every female in your choir or Church band.

Now I don't know about you but there have been and are exceptionally powerful female Christians that
have had and have a major influence on both male and female Christians in the world.
Like Joyce Myer, Kathryn Kuhlman, Beth Moore, Darlene Czschech, and Christine Caine
just to name a few and there are dozens more.
Every one of them have been a blessing to the Body of Christ AND gifted by God.

Should they have rejected the blessing of God on their lives and just sat silent ?
Absolutely not !
What a blessing they really are.

We must not forget that "there is neither male nor female ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus", said Paul.
The distinction only applies in the home where authority is needed according to God's will, because let's face it
any animal with two heads is a freak ... and so God being a God of order has designated the male to lead the
home.

This in no way means that because I am the head of my home that I'm any better than my wife, and can treat her in any old
way that i want to, rather as Jesus says in Luke 12:48,

" ... Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they
will demand the more".

You see, we as males have been given much authority in our homes over our families but much is required from us
like love your wife as your self and to treat her kindly and to live in understanding with her.
Being a true man is to imitate Jesus, not throw our weight around and act chauvinistic.

The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and
fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. Rom 8:16 & 17

This means both of us.

 

[Webers_Home]

This is NOT a flat out prohibition on the female to NEVER say a word in
Church. Because if it was then you would have to get rid of every female in
your choir or Church band.

I am not at liberty to tailor the application of Christ's wishes to accommodate
the internal affairs of modern churches. My only concern is that everything Paul
taught reflected the Lord's commandments.

†. 1Cor 14:37 . . If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let
him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the
commandments of The Lord.

†. 1Ths 4:1-2 . .We beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord
Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please
God, so ye would abound more and more. For ye know what commandments
we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

People who truly love the Lord will comply with the commandments that Paul
gave the churches by the Lord Jesus. Those who don't truly love the Lord
won't comply.

†. John 14:15 . . If you love me, you will comply with what I command.

†. John 14:21 . .Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one
who loves me.

†. John 14:23-24 . . If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching . . He who
does not love me will not obey my teaching.

†. John 15:14 . .You are my friends if you do as I wish.

We must not forget that "there is neither male nor female ... for you are all
one in Christ Jesus", said Paul.

The man who wrote Gal 3:28 is the self-same man who penned 1Cor 11:5-10,
1Cor 14:34-35, and 1Tim 2:11-14. I'm always somewhat baffled by people
who quote Paul's writings to refute Paul's writings. It's a zero-sum game
that they play with scripture.


Buen Camino
/

 

[Enquirer]

I am not at liberty to tailor the application of Christ's wishes to accommodate
the internal affairs of modern churches. My only concern is that everything Paul
taught reflected the Lord's commandments.

People who truly love the Lord will comply with the commandments that Paul
gave the churches by the Lord Jesus. Those who don't truly love the Lord
won't comply.

I completely agree ... in the Church today whether they be Evangelical (me), Denominational or Institutional, have done a real number
on God's word to the point where everything is debatable.
There is no absolute truth concerning any one thing today it's all open for discussion ... "Did God really mean ..... or say ..... XYZ"?

For me personally, what the Word says is the final authority ... this is not a popularity contest ... we are not serving or following Christ to
gain the approval or applause of man but God.

As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a
servant of Christ.
For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel.
For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Gal 1:9 - 12

I have just been watching John MacArthur's message on Fundamentals of Expository Preaching (whether you agree with him or not is
neither here nor there for me), in the message he makes the following statements,

"It's popular today to ask 'what does this mean to you' ? that is an utterly irrelevant question, I don't care what it means to you, I care
what it meant to God".

"Whatever the Bible meant to the original author, is what it means now ... people say we need to bring the Bible into modern times,
dead wrong. You need to bring the modern reader into Bible times. You have to take the hearer back and reconstruct the original
setting. That's the only way you can understand the meaning of Scripture."

And if that is the case and it is, then you have to understand the language, and the understanding of the language used will give clarity
on what was said and it into the proper context.

And contextually, the use of the word "woman" (same Greek word used for 'woman or wife' - "gyne") can be seen in the setting and
the passage can therefore be understood with greater accuracy or clarity ... this is not "modern" it's Biblical.

In the early church believers would gather in peoples homes where they had meetings, now remember when Peter was in prison in the Book of
Acts chaper 12, it says in verse 12,

When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and
were praying.

ALL of them were praying, that means the women too ... so women did pray aloud in the church meetings and by the looks of things their
prayers were answered because Peter was set free from prison by an angel.

In Acts 21: 8 & 9 it says,

On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed
with him.
He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied.

They prophesied ... and if you remember Paul says in 1 Cor 14:3

On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.
The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

and 1 Cor 14:22,

Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.

and 1 Cor 14:29 and 31 says,

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.

For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged,

So here we find these four virgins - women - who could prophesy, and prophecy was given in church meetings to build up
the church, which meant that women could build up the church by their words.
And they did so in front of the whole church.

Lastly, Paul says in 1 Cor 14:26,

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be
done for building up.

EACH ONE, which included women, could bring a hymn, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation ... now let's look at this, "a lesson",
that sounds like a message or a teaching to me ... and it could be a woman who brought it.
A "revelation", again, that's the Lord giving a revelation which is a message, and it could come through the mouth of a woman.

Furthermore, when it comes to the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 13), Paul DOES NOT SAY THAT THEY ARE EXCLUSIVE TO MEN
and teacher is one of those gifts.

The BIG problem passage that men often quote to exclude women from ministry is found in 1 Tim 2:11-15,

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is
to remain quiet.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Every time the word "woman" is used it could refer to "wife", and would NOT BE OUT OF CONTEXT, as Paul could very well be
saying that he does not allow the "wife" to teach or have authority over her husband.
Also it would be in perfect keeping with the above Scriptures I have quoted where Paul does not exclude a woman from the Gifts of
the Holy Spirit or prophecy or bringing a lesson etc. to a congregation made up of both men and women.
Because it is as the Holy Spirit wills.

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Why Was Cain Rejected?

The traditional explanation focuses on the two brothers' offerings. But in this
explanation; we're going to focus on their character instead.

†. Gen 4:2b . . Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of
the soil.

Both men worked at honorable professions and their skills were essential to
the Adams' survival. Man at this time was a vegetarian so Cain farmed and
raised the family's food; while Abel kept them clothed and shod by tending
flocks for leather; and possibly fleece too.

†. Gen 4:3-4a . . In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to The Lord
from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the
firstlings of his flock.

There's no indication in this scene suggesting their oblations were sacrifices
for sin. The Hebrew word for their offerings is from minchah (min-khaw')
and means: to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute;
specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary).

Since the offerings were minchah type offerings-- which are essentially gifts
rather than atonements --it would be wrong to insist Abel slew his firstling
and/or burned it to ashes. In point of fact, holocaust offerings go by the
name of 'olah (o-law') instead of minchah; for example Gen 22:2.

Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of
oblation.

T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain
brought of the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation
of first things before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the
flock. (Targum Jonathan)

Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of his
produce was the appropriate first fruits offering, and seeing as how Abel was
an animal husbandman, then in his case a head of his livestock was the
appropriate first fruits offering.

I think it's safe to assume the brothers were no longer boys, but rather,
responsible men in this particular scene because God is going to treat them
that way. This incident is not said to be the very first time they brought gifts
to God. The brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been
bringing gifts for many years; ever since they were kids. And up to this
point, apparently both men were doing everything right and God was just as
much pleased with Cain and his gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.

But where did they get this religion of theirs? Well; wasn't Abel a prophet?

Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the
prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the
blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar
and the sanctuary." (Luke 11:50-51a)

It's evident then that the offerings were a legitimate part of a God-given
religion rather than a pagan ritual. (cf. Heb 11:4)

†. Gen 4:4b-5a . .The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain
and his offering He paid no heed.

It's common for poorly-trained Bible students to trip up on the nature of the
offerings and totally miss the role that the nature of the men played in their
worship; in other words: they assume Cain was rejected because his offering
was bloodless and they attempt to justify their theory by citing the below:

"It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering to God than
Cain did. God accepted Abel's offering to show that he was a righteous
man." (Heb 11:4)

However, the focus in both Genesis and Hebrews is not really upon the
offerings because it's okay for a minchah to be bloodless. The focus is
actually upon faith and righteousness; viz: the focus is upon the nature of
the brother's conduct rather than upon the nature of their gifts. Abel's
conduct was righteous; hence God felt honored by his gift; while Cain's
conduct was unrighteous; hence God felt insulted by his gift.

Cain was of a good family. He wasn't the product of poverty or an inner city
barrio or dilapidated public housing. His mother wasn't cruel and/or
thoughtless, nor did she neglect him or abandon him. He wasn't in a gang,
didn't carry a church key, a shank, an ice pick, or a gun; didn't smoke weed,
drink, snort coke, take meth, gamble or chase women. He was very religious
and worshipped the exact same God that his brother worshipped, and the
rituals he practiced were correct and timely.

Cain worked for a living in an honest profession. He wasn't a thief, wasn't a
predatory lender, wasn't a Wall Street barracuda, a dishonest investment
banker, or an unscrupulous social network mogul. He wasn't a cheap
politician, wasn't a terrorist, wasn't on the take, wasn't lazy, nor did he
associate with the wrong crowd. The man did everything a model citizen is
supposed to do; yet he, and subsequently his gift, were soundly rejected
because he was unrighteous.

In what way was he unrighteous? Well, Cain's blemish is an elephant in the
middle of the room. It was friction between him and his brother. It is
unacceptable to worship God while the worshipper's relationship with their
brother is dysfunctional.

"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your
brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar,
and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and
offer your gift." (Matt 5:23-24)

†. Gen 4:5b-7a . . Cain was much distressed and his face fell. And The Lord
said to Cain: Why are you distressed, and why is your face fallen? If you do
what is right, will you not be accepted?

Bingo! There it is. And the question The Lord asked Cain is still pertinent to
this very day.

†. 1John 1:5-7 . . God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say
that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not
the truth: but if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship
one with another.

In other words: If we walk in the light; will we not be accepted?

Now this is very, very interesting because 1John 1:5-7 wasn't penned to
Cain; it was penned to Christians; and there is no question that Christians
have offered God the correct sacrifice for their sins. But in spite of offering
God the correct sacrifice for their sins; they still have to walk in the light if
they expect to obtain His stamp of approval on their worship.

†. John 14:23-24 . . If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my
Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with
him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye
hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Obviously then, if a Christian "keepeth not my sayings" then their worship is
just as soundly rejected as Cain's; and I have no doubt that there is a pretty
good number pew warmers out and about who would be just as well off
going to a sports bar on Sunday morning as go to church seeing as how
their lives during the week are unbecoming; most especially those coming to
church with dysfunctional families.

†. 1John 4:20-21 . . If someone says "I love God" and hates his brother, he
is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can
he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from
Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

=====================================

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Why Didn't God Prosecute Cain For Murder?

According to the covenant that God instituted with Noah after the Flood;
murder is a mandated death offense. (Gen 9:5)

The death penalty for murder was included as a statute in the covenant
that Yhvh's people agreed upon with God at Sinai as per Ex 21:12-14, Lev
24:17, Lev 24:21, and Num 35:31-34.

Q: So then, seeing as how capital punishment for murder is a divine
mandate; then how was God able to let Cain walk without compromising His
own integrity? Does God practice a double standard?

A: Murder is morally wrong, yes; and it is intrinsically a sin, yes; however;
prior to the Flood, men were at liberty to go on safari and hunt each other
like human wildlife because God had not yet enacted any laws granting
humanity protected species status. Divinely ordained capital punishment was
unheard of, and unthinkable, prior to the Flood because it is an axiom that
Bible law isn't retroactive; viz: it can't be enforced until after it is enacted;
which is precisely why God couldn't prosecute Cain for murder. (Rom 4:15,
Rom 5:13, and Gal 3:17)

Case in point: Abraham married a half-sister. Sarah was his father's
daughter, but not his mother's (Gen 20:12). According to the covenant that
Yhvh's people agreed upon with God at Sinai, it is a breach of the covenant
to sleep with someone that close.

"The nakedness of your sister-- your father's daughter or your mother's,
whether born into the household or outside --do not uncover their
nakedness." (Lev 18:9)

But Abraham was exempt from that law because God didn't enact it till
several centuries after Abraham's passing; and this is very important to
understand. Here's why:

Modern Judaism insists that Deut 29:14-15 retroactively binds Abraham to
the covenant. Well; not only is that kind thinking a stretch of the
imagination; but it's not even sensible because any and all breaches of the
covenant incur curses.

"Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the
daughter of his mother." (Deut 27:22)

"Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them."
(Deut 27:26)

If God were to level curses at Abraham for breaching the covenant; then
God would be quite obligated to level curses at Himself.

"I will curse him who curses you" (Gen 12:3)

Not only that; but any curses that the covenant would impose upon
Abraham for sleeping with his half sister, would quite effectively annul any
and all of the promises that God made to him in the book of Genesis.

The Jews' occupation of the land of Israel has always been conditional upon
their compliance with the covenant; but their ownership of the land has
always been conditional upon the promises that God made to Abraham prior
to the covenant's institution. That way there is no possible chance of
Abraham's posterity ever losing the deed to that land no matter how many
times they breach the covenant. They might get evicted from their homeland
from time to time; but it will always remain theirs due to Abraham's
immunity to the covenant's curses.

=====================================

 

[StanJ]

How Long Was A Creation Day?

The Hebrew word for "day" is very ambiguous. For example; at Gen 2:4,
yowm encompasses the entire creation endeavor from start to finish.

In the past, no doubt most Bible scholars interpreted the phrase "evening
and morning" to indicate a 24-hour calendar day; but God began marking off
His days of creation with evenings and mornings before the sun even
existed; so I think it's pretty safe to rule the sun out as a time-keeping
mechanism relative to the days of creation.

According to Gen 1:24-31, God created humans and all land animals on the
sixth day; which has to include dinosaurs because on no other day did God
create land animals but the sixth. Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days
of creation were 24-hour calendar days in length; but the sciences have
easily proven that the Jurassic era was over and done several millions of
years prior to the entrance of truly human life.

So then, in my estimation, the days of creation should be taken to represent
epochs of indeterminable length rather than 24-hour calendar days.

The Hebrew word 'yome' has a few connotations which must be interpreted along with the context of the scripture they are used in. In the case of Gen 1:5, it is used with two connotations....the first as God called the light “day”, and the second as the first day. The first refers to daylight and the second refers to the complete day being night and day. At the time of Moses, (who wrote the Pentateuch) a day was divided as our hand is. We have 24 knuckles on our fingers(thumbs aren't counted) and that is what man used to count the hours or periods of the day, but it was based on the solar status, so days started at different actual times based on our current clock. The rest is history. Bottom line is they were pretty much days as we know them today, just not so accurate. Day and night is still day and night when used in the first connotation of 'yome' in Gen 1:5

Yes, I am a hard core Bible thumper as you put it, for good reason. It says what it means and means what it says. Heb 4:12

 

[Trekson]

Hi Weber, I was going to take the time to go through your presentation point by point but as I got into it I realized it would take way more time than I have available so I’m just going to focus on some of the highlights. I’m a creationist but I’m not a young-earther. I also don’t subscribe to the earth is millions of years old theories either. I tend to take the middle ground. I’m willing to concede the fact that creation days 1-4 were longer than 24 hrs. because “time” wasn’t created yet. I believe the creation of the sun and moon along with the stars is when “time” as we know it began, thus I believe days 5-7 were literal 24 hr. days.

Your words: “[SIZE=10.5pt]Hard-core Bible thumpers insist the days
of creation were 24-hour calendar days in length; but the sciences have
easily proven that the Jurassic era was over and done several millions of
years prior to the entrance of truly human life[/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt].”[/SIZE]

“The sciences” have “proven” nothing. They have speculated, postulated, presumed and theorized but are a far cry away from determining anything of any factual regarding this area of study. Radiocarbon or radiometric dating are not “sure things”. There are problems with both methods and the beginning parameters are based on intellectual guess work not cold hard facts. I believe the oldest dinosaur found is probably around 100,000 yrs. old at best which is admittedly just my opinion not based on any scientific fact at all.
[SIZE=10.5pt]Your words: “We assume the "days" of creation consisted of twenty-four hours
apiece; so we end up stumped when trying to figure out how to cope with
the 4.5 billion year age of the earth, and factor in the various eras, e.g.
Triassic, Jurassic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, Cretaceous, etc, plus the ice ages and
the mass extinction events. It just never seems to occur to us that it might
be okay in some cases to go ahead and think outside the box.”[/SIZE]

I don’t get “stumped”, I take God at His word. I believe all creatures including dinosaurs were created on the same day[SIZE=10.5pt]. [/SIZE]I have put some thought into this and I have my beliefs which I readily admit are also based on speculating, postulating, presuming and theorizing with absolutely no facts to back them up and I arrived at my conclusions by thinking “outside the box”. Hardcore Bible thumpers, as you call them are, imo, guilty of underestimating God. They seem to believe that on Day 8, God made Eve and on Day 9 they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but the bible doesn’t say that. Here are some unwritten facts:

1. We do not know how long Adam was in the garden before Eve. It could have been hundreds or thousands of years.
2. We don’t know how long Adam and Eve lived together in the garden before the fall. Again, it could have been hundreds or thousands of years.

I believe that until the “fall”, Adam and Eve were eternal and we are told that the Tree of Life was one of the trees in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:22-24). This would account for their long lives and the time it took for those lives to begin to shorten as the “life” began to weaken as human DNA got farther away from the garden in the succession of generations.

Let’s take a look at part of the curse man received as a result of the “fall”. Gen. 3:16 – “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Many “thumpers” also believe that Eve’s child bearing began with Cain but the curse defies that logic. The wording implies that she was able to conceive w/o sorrow and in a shorter duration of time. For all we know. Adam and Eve could have had thousands of offspring before the fall. This would account for the “others” that Cain was afraid of in Gen.4:14.

I believe there is a lot of their story that just wasn’t told. The record of humanity just happens to begin with first child conceived after the fall. Ok, I can hear someone saying, “Wait a minute, the bible tells us that Adam was only 930 yrs. old when he died, how could he have lived ‘thousands of years?”

I have an answer for that. I believe that Adam’s “real-time” birthday was the day of the fall. That was the day he “began” to die and it took him 930 years to do it.

[SIZE=10.5pt]Your words: “Some Bible students regard science an enemy of religion; but I sincerely believe that science and religion are not enemies; no, to the contrary,
science and religion assist each other. Galileo believed that science and
religion are allies rather than enemies-- two different languages telling the
same story. There are well-meaning folk who prefer to keep science out of
the creation story.” [/SIZE]

I don’t think “science” is the enemy. After all, it is the laws of God upon which science is based. However, I do believe that many “scientists” are enemies of creationism. I believe that they bluster and lie to maintain their pet theories which really haven’t gotten farther than the hypothesis stage of thinking. They demand that unproven theories like evolution be taught and that all thoughts of creationism be banned from the schools. They are afraid of truth, though the cloak it in a desire to “protect” students from “unscientific myths”. They have replaced the one, true God with an abstract god of knowledge of which they are constantly discovering they really know very little at all.

 

[River Jordan]

“The sciences” have “proven” nothing. They have speculated, postulated, presumed and theorized but are a far cry away from determining anything of any factual regarding this area of study. Radiocarbon or radiometric dating are not “sure things”. There are problems with both methods and the beginning parameters are based on intellectual guess work not cold hard facts.

Really? And I assume that in order to speak as an expert in this subject, you have put some study into it, correct? So what exactly are these "beginning parameters" that are "guesswork"?

I don’t think “science” is the enemy. After all, it is the laws of God upon which science is based. However, I do believe that many “scientists” are enemies of creationism. I believe that they bluster and lie to maintain their pet theories which really haven’t gotten farther than the hypothesis stage of thinking. They demand that unproven theories like evolution be taught and that all thoughts of creationism be banned from the schools. They are afraid of truth, though the cloak it in a desire to “protect” students from “unscientific myths”. They have replaced the one, true God with an abstract god of knowledge of which they are constantly discovering they really know very little at all.

So do you believe the world's earth and life scientists have been deliberately conspiring against...well, I guess God, the Bible, and Christianity...for over 150 years now?

 

[StanJ]

Really? And I assume that in order to speak as an expert in this subject, you have put some study into it, correct? So what exactly are these "beginning parameters" that are "guesswork"?

So do you believe the world's earth and life scientists have been deliberately conspiring against...well, I guess God, the Bible, and Christianity...for over 150 years now?

This is prevarication/equivocation River. It is NOT what Trekson wrote. I agree with the tenor of what he wrote, although not all the points.
The FACTS are that science does guess to arrive at their conclusions. You tell me how they can arrive at the age of the universe without making some blind conclusions. Faith may sound like blind conclusions, but it is not. Scientists don't have the same reason as Christians do so why would they make blind conclusions?

 

[Webers_Home]

-
Genesis is very handy for telling everybody that God did it. However,
Genesis doesn't tell anybody "how" God did it. I sincerely believe that God
left that part of creation up to scientists to discover. Keeps 'em busy too
because it seems that every time they unravel one mystery, another pops
up to take its place.

Take for instance gravity. Something like 85% of the gravity in the universe
comes from a source that scientists know absolutely nothing about. They've
given this mysterious source the name dark matter. The word "matter" is
arbitrary seeing as how nobody has a clue as to the nature of the source of
this unexplained gravity. But to give you an idea of how it works:

In 1976, while studying the rotation of spiral galaxies, Carnegie
astrophysicist Vera Rubin became a bit perplexed when she discovered they
rotate faster than their known mass should allow. In other words; Vera could
not figure out why spirals didn't fly apart long ago seeing as how the
combined gravity of all their known mass is insufficient to hold themselves
together at the rate at which they spin. You see; spiral galaxies are just as
much subject to centrifugal force as the ponies on a merry-go-round.

There's no real mystery why the earth didn't long ago escape the sun's pull
and fly off into space. It's because the earth's mass, the sun's gravity, and
the earth's orbital velocity are just right: they balance and keep the earth in
place. But not so in spiral galaxies. There is no observable balance.

Well; long story short; scientists are still looking for whatever it is that's
keeping spiral galaxies intact; and in point of fact, this mysterious gravity
even works to hold not just individual galaxies intact; but even clusters
composed of galaxies.

It's tempting to say "the hand of God is keeping them intact" but that's a
lazy man's explanation. When somebody falls back on the "hand of God"
they lock yourself into perpetual ignorance of the "how" God did it. No;
scientists will keep looking for that mysterious source; and one day they will
find it just as they have found so many other mysterious things in the
cosmos.

Another unsolved mystery is something that's been labeled "dark energy".
This one is really a brain buster. In a nutshell it's been discovered that every
galaxy in the universe is moving away from every other galaxy; which gave
rise to the term "expanding universe". But the enigma is; their movement is
not slowing down as one might expect gravity to pull them all together some
day into one great big colossal super galaxy. No; instead of slowing down,
the velocity of their movement is actually accelerating beyond gravity's
expectations; and thus they will never succeed in compacting the universe.

Dark matter and dark energy were created at some moment in the book of
Genesis. I can't be positive where or when, but my money is on the bet that
they are somehow elements of the Light that God created on the very first
day.


Buen Camino
/

 

[StanJ]

Is it your intention to just post your thoughts on supporting science or discuss implications of biblical faith?
Science is not meant to confirm the existence of God, only how things work. It is man's intrinsic nature to want to understand how things work in the world we live in. Faith is meant to put all that into God's hands and say "I trust what your word says God, despite what man may."
Your choice. God has existed forever, science has not, and even in the thousands of years science has existed, it has not gotten anywhere near understanding this universe and world that God created in six days. It never will.

 

[River Jordan]

This is prevarication/equivocation River. It is NOT what Trekson wrote.

We'll see if that's what he meant.

The FACTS are that science does guess to arrive at their conclusions. You tell me how they can arrive at the age of the universe without making some blind conclusions.

You're the one speaking as an authority on the subject, so please tell me...how do cosmologists estimate the age of the universe?

 

[StanJ]

You're the one speaking as an authority on the subject, so please tell me...how do cosmologists estimate the age of the universe?

They use two different methods...by studying the oldest objects within the universe and measuring how fast it is expanding. Still doesn't mean these methods are based on accuracy, they are only based on observation. Observation is NOT always reliable nor accurate, and there are far to many variables and unknowns for it to be infallible.

 

[River Jordan]

They use two different methods...by studying the oldest objects within the universe and measuring how fast it is expanding. Still doesn't mean these methods are based on accuracy, they are only based on observation. Observation is NOT always reliable nor accurate, and there are far to many variables and unknowns for it to be infallible.

So can you cite one of their published papers and identify the errors you think it contains? And who said anything about their work being infallible?

 

[Trekson]

Hi Weber, Let's start w/ carbon dating. They say that the half life of carbon is 5,730 yrs. and that it proves unreliable on fossils over 60,000 yrs. old. There just might be a plausible reason for that which would be that nothing is older than that, however that answer doesn't satisfy them so they needed to find something that justifies their reasoning. So they tried carbon dating tree rings which seemed to justify them for a while but then things began to get "fudged" as the tree rings suddenly didn't start to go their way. Now they needed a different method som they went to uranium or plutonium dating which they "claim has a half-life from seconds to billions of years. How can they know that? If anything isn't actually observable it's just conjecture but it gave them the time they desired to "disprove" creationism and that made them happy. After all if there is no God then they don't have to fear standing before Him some day.

You posted that you believe God allows science to show "how" God did what he did. I claim, it's none of our business and we will never know the answers until we get to the other side of eternity. Look what happened the last time man got a little uppity. Gen. 11:4,6 - "And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth...And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

There is a limit to the knowledge that God will allow us to have. Why? Because humanity can't be trusted with it. Nuclear power is an excellent example. What's the first thing we did? Made a weapon of mass destruction! What will happen the next time evil gets uppity. Rev. 18:7-8 - "How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. 8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her."

God doesn't like it when we think proudly of ourselves and science is no exception. There is, imo, an invisible line of knowledge that humanity will never be allowed to cross and the secrets of creation are, imo, one of them.

 

[River Jordan]

Let's start w/ carbon dating. They say that the half life of carbon is 5,730 yrs. and that it proves unreliable on fossils over 60,000 yrs. old. There just might be a plausible reason for that which would be that nothing is older than that, however that answer doesn't satisfy them so they needed to find something that justifies their reasoning. So they tried carbon dating tree rings which seemed to justify them for a while but then things began to get "fudged" as the tree rings suddenly didn't start to go their way. Now they needed a different method som they went to uranium or plutonium dating which they "claim has a half-life from seconds to billions of years.

Do you have any actual citations that document your allegations of deliberate fraud?

How can they know that? If anything isn't actually observable it's just conjecture but it gave them the time they desired to "disprove" creationism and that made them happy. After all if there is no God then they don't have to fear standing before Him some day.

Is that how you think scientists operate? Seriously?

You posted that you believe God allows science to show "how" God did what he did. I claim, it's none of our business

Wow. :blink:

 

[Webers_Home]

-

You posted that you believe God allows science to show "how" God did what
he did. I claim, it's none of our business

Ignorance is a powerful management tool. For example; the Roman Church
taught generations of trusting folk that the universe was geo-centric. In
other words: like a colossal snow globe with Earth right in the middle of
everything. And then along came guys like Christian Huygens and Galileo
Galilei and began discovering, and proving, that the Earth wasn't even at the
center of the solar system, let alone the entire universe.

Well; the Church did not react very well to that. Long story short, they
labeled those men's finds heresy; and I'm sure you can understand why.
Their discoveries made the Church look like it was being captained by
charlatans; which, at the time, it was.

How Did The Critters Get To Noah?

†. Gen 6:3a . . And Yhvh said: My Spirit shall not strive with man forever.
Yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.

Some feel that God set the limits of human longevity in that verse. But
people still continued to live long lives for a great number of years
afterwards. Even Abraham, who lived many, many years after the Flood,
didn't die till he was 175 years old. No; it's far more reasonable to conclude
that God was announcing a deadline; viz: the antediluvians had 120 years
left to get ready to meet their maker. But you think that alarmed anybody?
Heck no. They went right on; business as usual.

"And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of
Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in
marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and
destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26-27)

The time of God's patience is sometimes long; but never unlimited; viz:
reprieves are not acquittals-- though God bear a great while, He never bears
forever.

†. Gen 6:12-14 . . God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the
people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah: I am going
to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of
them. I am about to destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark

†. Gen 6:17 . . For My part, I am about to bring the Flood-- waters upon the
earth --to destroy all flesh under the sky in which there is breath of life;
everything on earth shall perish.

†. Gen 6:19-20 . . And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of
each into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and female.
From birds of every kind, cattle of every kind, every kind of creeping thing
on earth, two of each shall come to you to stay alive.

Fortunately Noah didn't have to go on safari to round up his passengers.
God said two of each "shall come to you" (cf. Gen 7:9, Gen 7:15) which
implies of course that species who failed to come got left behind and went
extinct in the Flood. There was plenty of time for them to make it because
Noah was 120 years building the ark and getting it ready.

A man named Dave Kunst walked across today's world in just a little over 4
years from June 1970 to October 1974. Kunst walked a total of 14,450
miles, crossing four continents and thirteen countries, wearing out 21 pair of
shoes, and walking more than 20 million steps. That was an odd thing to do,
but does prove it can be done in a relatively short time; so 120 years was
plenty enough for all the critters to make it on over to Noah's place in time
for the Folly's maiden voyage.

If the ark were to launch in 2014, critters would have been on the move
towards it since 1894-- nine years before the Wright Brothers historical flight
--and probably reproduced many times along the way since there are not all
that many species that live to see 120 years of age.

But how did they cross oceans? In the past that was doubtless a thorny
theological problem. But with today's knowledge of the geological science of
plate tectonics, the answer is as simple as two plus two. Scientists now know
that continental land masses can be shifted, and in point of fact the dry
parts brought so close together as to form one single super continent.

Scientists also know about subduction and magma hot spots and pressure
points that can raise and lower the earth's crust like a service elevator; for
example according to Gen 14:3, the area now known as the Dead Sea was
once known as the Vale of Siddim. Sometime in the distant past the earth's
crust rose in that region, blocking the Jordan River's natural drainage into
the gulf of Aqaba; thus trapping it's waters in a huge basin from which they
cannot escape. Subduction causes the earth to wrinkle, bulge, and form
valleys, mountain ranges, and hilly country.

Those geological processes no doubt played a role by pushing sea beds up
above sea level and made to form land bridges; thus expediting migrations
from all over the world over to Noah's diggings.

This idea is by no means novel. For example: in 2014, a 9,000 year-old
stone structure utilized to capture caribou was discovered 120 feet below the
surface of Lake Huron; and is the most complex structure of its kind in the
Great Lakes region.

The structure consists of two parallel lanes of stones leading to a cul-de-sac.
Within the lanes are three circular hunting blinds where prehistoric hunters
hid while taking aim at caribou. The structure's size and design suggest that
hunting was probably a group effort, with one group driving caribou down
the lanes towards the blinds while another group waited to attack.

The site-- discovered by using sonar technology on the Alpena-Amberley
Ridge, 35 miles southeast of Alpena Michigan --was once a dry land corridor
connecting northeastern Michigan to southern Ontario.

Actually the Earth's mantle is one continuous (albeit fractured) shell anyway,
although its profile is so irregular that dry land sticks up above sea level at
various high spots; which is a good thing because if the mantle were
smooth, the world would be quite flooded all the time. In point of fact, if the
Earth's mantle were perfectly smooth, like a billiard ball, there's enough
water present even today to cover the Earth to a depth of 9,000 feet of
water. That would be equivalent to a global ocean approximately 1.7 miles
deep.

Normal geological processes take thousands of years to accomplish, but
when you factor in the creator's participation in the Flood event, it's no
problem at all for the cosmos' creator, who has absolute power over
everything-- not just the earth's geological processes; but all the rest of
nature's processes too.

=====================================