In the book of Matthew, (chap. 14), we read the story of Jesus walking on water. Curiously, the story follows right on the tail of the miracle of Jesus feeding the 5000. I think this to be significant. According to Matthew, Jesus' ministry and miracles to this point had been of a different nature. From Christ's birth to here, Jesus had proven himself to be many things, such as a teacher of scripture, a prophet of the coming Kingdom, and a miraculous physician. His miracles of healing alone set him apart as unique in the world. Quite a following had arisen around Him for the sake of healings and exorcisms. The very nature of the works drew men to Himself. His words were profound and moved men to seek Him and be near Him.
The feeding of the 5000 was different. As I see it, it changed the dynamic of the relationship Jesus had with His followers. It was a calling out, so to speak, of those who might seek Him for a higher reason, and an exposition of those who were self seeking. He had reasoned with men and had compassion on them. He healed them of their infirmities and loved them. Aren't these the very reasons we are drawn to Him? Can we then follow Him when He calls us out for a higher purpose? Perhaps, we choose to settle for having our hearts touched and His compassion poured over our sick souls. Not a bad choice to be sure, but I think He is taking us further here. Those 5000 could have been sent home as the disciples suggested. Some would have been inconvenienced, some grumbling with hunger pangs, and others sad to have to go. However, Jesus chose to feed them. He certainly had compassion for their immediate need, but this, I suggest, was a time of culling of the flock.
Of all Jesus' followers, there were those who needed their needs met and their ailments cured. There were also those who wanted more. They wanted to know Him. They wanted to be like Him. They were willing to surrender and suspend all for Him. These were whom He was after. In John 6:26,27, Jesus offfers a rebuke to this same multitude for their seeking after a meal rather than He upon whom the Father has set His seal. In both accounts, Jesus follows the miracle by walking on water. The feeding, though, is itself a set up for the significance of the walk. Heretofore, Christ's love and compassion was the basis of His miracles. With the turning of 5 loaves and two fishes into a feast for so many, Jesus was now displaying His command of the elements of nature. He created matter where there was none. He confounded the laws of Physics. This is not just an image of His ability to provide for those who seek provision. This is a display of His ownership of the universe, His ability to call all forces of nature and every molecule of existance to meet His command, and to do so to the benefit of those who love and follow Him. This display reidentifies Him. He no longer can be seen as a profit, teacher and physician, only. He, by this, has shown that He is God. Holy. Above creation and yet present. This is the God we are to know. This is the God we are to aspire to, and surrender and suspend all for.
The next evening we find the disciples in the boat. The wind had picked up and there were high seas. The disciples then saw Jesus walking toward them on the water. They cried out in fear, but He calmed them, reassuring them by His words. And then a profound event took place. Peter stepped out on the water. Peter was here, by my thinking, an everyman. Jesus had just that day displayed His Godliness and again on the surface of the lake showed His holiness. In all our culture, is there any expression which typifies implied holiness more than to say, "He walks on water"? Do we not discount the morality or goodness of a man by noting that he doesn't walk on water? Clearly we can see that Christ's call to Peter was to be like Him. Holy. Above creation, and yet present. Does not He call to each of us who seek Him for His sake to be like Him. Holy. Above creation, and yet present? Are not the results the same for us as they were for Peter?
Matt 14:30, "But seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, 'Lord, save me!'"
To me the pursuit of sanctification is both a call and a reminder. We are called to be Holy. Scripture tells us time and again that God says, "Be Holy for I am Holy." So as we step out into a life of Holiness, remember that when we sink, and I believe we all will sink, we are to cry out for Him. He will assuredly stretch out His hand and take hold of us. We must step out into Holiness, for He has commanded it, (v.29), but never let any of us believe that we have succeeded. Any holiness we attain is by His outstretched hand.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
This says it all
My wife and I read this today. This is how I feel about my relationship with our master.
C. H. Spurgeon
"Salvation is of the Lord."—Jonah 2:9.
SALVATION is the work of God. It is He alone who quickens the soul "dead in trespasses and sins," and it is He also who maintains the soul in its spiritual life. He is both "Alpha and Omega." "Salvation is of the Lord." If I am prayerful, God makes me prayerful; if I have graces, they are God's gifts to me; if I hold on in a consistent life, it is because He upholds me with His hand. I do nothing whatever towards my own preservation, except what God Himself first does in me. Whatever I have, all my goodness is of the Lord alone. Wherein I sin, that is my own; but wherein I act rightly, that is of God, wholly and completely. If I have repulsed a spiritual enemy, the Lord's strength nerved my arm. Do I live before men a consecrated life? It is not I, but Christ who liveth in me. Am I sanctified? I did not cleanse myself: God's Holy Spirit sanctifies me. Am I weaned from the world? I am weaned by God's chastisements sanctified to my good. Do I grow in knowledge? The great Instructor teaches me. All my jewels were fashioned by heavenly art. I find in God all that I want; but I find in myself nothing but sin and misery. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Do I feed on the Word? That Word would be no food for me unless the Lord made it food for my soul, and helped me to feed upon it. Do I live on the manna which comes down from heaven? What is that manna but Jesus Christ himself incarnate, whose body and whose blood I eat and drink? Am I continually receiving fresh increase of strength? Where do I gather my might? My help cometh from heaven's hills: without Jesus I can do nothing. As a branch cannot bring forth fruit except it abide in the vine, no more can I, except I abide in Him. What Jonah learned in the great deep, let me learn this morning in my closet: "Salvation is of the Lord."
Friday, February 4, 2011
Genesis 4
That Cain and Abel story is very interesting to me. I find that the murder of Abel by his brother had a far reaching effect on mankind of the early days. I also think that the effect stretches through to the destruction of virtually all men at the time of the great flood. Here's how I see it:
At the time of the fall, in the garden of Eden, God made a promise when He cursed the serpent. He said, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." (Gen 3:15). This was an apparent prophesy about her decendant, Jesus, and his crushing of sin, Satan, evil, etc. We know that Satan did strike Him with a fatal wound, just like when bitten by a poisonous snake, but He emerges the victor.
Eve gave birth to a Cain, (Gen 4:1), which must have been astonishing to her, for as of yet no such thing had ever happened. Might not she have thought that Cain was the answer to God's promise. (Same verse) Eve said, "with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man." Abel was born later. In my way of thinking, it's not unlikely that she would have considered Cain the fulfillment of the promise, and looked to Abel as just a son. Her reaction to Abel's murder by Cain must have been heartbreaking, for sure, but also confusing as she watched Cain be exiled by God to Nod, east of Eden. In Cain was the hope for restoration to communion with God. Now he was gone. Her other son was dead. Perhaps her hope died as well.
Hope reborn. Eve gave birth to another son and named him Seth, saying "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." (Gen. 4:25). The Bible then gives two seperate geneologies, Cain's and Seth's. The geneology of Cain goes several generations before it is dropped, but we then follow Seth's, Starting with his father Adam, through Seth, all the way to Noah. Of course this is the same family tree we are reminded of in Luke Chapter 4. This is the line of decendancy through which God's promise of restoration was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
I wish I could claim this one for my own, but I found this in a Bible commentary once, I appreciated it very much, however I've never heard this taught, nor read about this idea elsewhere. The suggestion was that when we read about the flood, the story starts off with, (Gen. 6:1,2), "When men began to increase in number on the Earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose." I've heard a few explanations for who we're talking about here, but none ever satisfied me until this particular commentary. The commentator concluded that the sons of men might possibly be the decendants of Cain, the foresaken brother killer, and the son's of God were the decendants of Seth. In hind sight we see that it was through Seth and his lineage that we arrive at Christ. Hence the Godly line, or sons of God. It was not good that the Godly line was intermarrying with the earthly line. I think we can assume that the Godly line was diminishing and we find that by the time of Noah no Godly men remained. (Gen 6:7-9) So the Lord said, "'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created from the face of the Earth . . . . . for I am grieved that I have made them.' But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." I think Noah was the last righteous man on Earth. The only hope for the restoration of the decendants of Adam and Eve to communion with God, was in his loins. God could have easily wiped out everyone and started all over again. God, however, does not break His promises, so this was the solution.
My thoughts, apart from the afore mentioned commentary are that if Noah was the last righteous man, then his sons were not necessarily righteous, but would procreate only through the preserved decendants of Noah. Cain's crime against his brother was finally dealt with. This was not retribution for the crime of murder, but the necessary consequence for a society completely intermarried with sin.
In Job we find the "sons of God", KJV, petitioning Him at His throne. In the NIV they are refered to as angels. I don't know which is the correct interpretation, but I suspect that the sons of Seth found favor in the sight of God, if for nothing else other than their direct genetic connection to Christ. However I give them more credit than that. Enoch, it is said, walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away, (Gen. 5:24).
If anyone would care to comment, I think there is a lot to be explored here. Or maybe I've got it all wrong. Tell me what you think,
Joe
At the time of the fall, in the garden of Eden, God made a promise when He cursed the serpent. He said, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." (Gen 3:15). This was an apparent prophesy about her decendant, Jesus, and his crushing of sin, Satan, evil, etc. We know that Satan did strike Him with a fatal wound, just like when bitten by a poisonous snake, but He emerges the victor.
Eve gave birth to a Cain, (Gen 4:1), which must have been astonishing to her, for as of yet no such thing had ever happened. Might not she have thought that Cain was the answer to God's promise. (Same verse) Eve said, "with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man." Abel was born later. In my way of thinking, it's not unlikely that she would have considered Cain the fulfillment of the promise, and looked to Abel as just a son. Her reaction to Abel's murder by Cain must have been heartbreaking, for sure, but also confusing as she watched Cain be exiled by God to Nod, east of Eden. In Cain was the hope for restoration to communion with God. Now he was gone. Her other son was dead. Perhaps her hope died as well.
Hope reborn. Eve gave birth to another son and named him Seth, saying "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." (Gen. 4:25). The Bible then gives two seperate geneologies, Cain's and Seth's. The geneology of Cain goes several generations before it is dropped, but we then follow Seth's, Starting with his father Adam, through Seth, all the way to Noah. Of course this is the same family tree we are reminded of in Luke Chapter 4. This is the line of decendancy through which God's promise of restoration was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
I wish I could claim this one for my own, but I found this in a Bible commentary once, I appreciated it very much, however I've never heard this taught, nor read about this idea elsewhere. The suggestion was that when we read about the flood, the story starts off with, (Gen. 6:1,2), "When men began to increase in number on the Earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose." I've heard a few explanations for who we're talking about here, but none ever satisfied me until this particular commentary. The commentator concluded that the sons of men might possibly be the decendants of Cain, the foresaken brother killer, and the son's of God were the decendants of Seth. In hind sight we see that it was through Seth and his lineage that we arrive at Christ. Hence the Godly line, or sons of God. It was not good that the Godly line was intermarrying with the earthly line. I think we can assume that the Godly line was diminishing and we find that by the time of Noah no Godly men remained. (Gen 6:7-9) So the Lord said, "'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created from the face of the Earth . . . . . for I am grieved that I have made them.' But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." I think Noah was the last righteous man on Earth. The only hope for the restoration of the decendants of Adam and Eve to communion with God, was in his loins. God could have easily wiped out everyone and started all over again. God, however, does not break His promises, so this was the solution.
My thoughts, apart from the afore mentioned commentary are that if Noah was the last righteous man, then his sons were not necessarily righteous, but would procreate only through the preserved decendants of Noah. Cain's crime against his brother was finally dealt with. This was not retribution for the crime of murder, but the necessary consequence for a society completely intermarried with sin.
In Job we find the "sons of God", KJV, petitioning Him at His throne. In the NIV they are refered to as angels. I don't know which is the correct interpretation, but I suspect that the sons of Seth found favor in the sight of God, if for nothing else other than their direct genetic connection to Christ. However I give them more credit than that. Enoch, it is said, walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away, (Gen. 5:24).
If anyone would care to comment, I think there is a lot to be explored here. Or maybe I've got it all wrong. Tell me what you think,
Joe
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Starry, starry night
A man and his son stand out in the back yard on a starry evening. The son asks, "Dad, what's the name of that star over there?"
"Which one Billy?" replies His Dad.
"That one there, over that tall fir tree."
"Well son, that one's called Betelguese. It's the brightest star in the night sky. See, it is the shoulder of the constellation 'Orion'."
Billy is alive with wonder as he dreams of maybe traveling to the limits of the universe one day. "It must be pretty close to be so bright, huh Dad?"
"Actually son, even though Betelguese is probably the closest of all stars, its's still a million light years away," says Dad, as he follows through with a short lesson on light years and the speed of light, and other details Billy will be proud to relate to all his buddies at school. Billy's dreams are dashed, though, realizing he''ll never be able to go that far.
Silly story, I know. Not long ago, I was at Sunday school along with all the good folks there at church. In talking about the grandure of God's universe, I was taken by how quickly we all could spit out facts about the size and breadth of the universe. We were enlightening each other on the facts and figures. One would say, "a million light years." Another would quickly interject, "a light year is the distance light would travel over the course of a year." Yet another tossed out, "186,000 miles per second, ya know." I found it interesting that we all felt so sure of things. Maybe, we should leave the astrophysics out of our discussions about God. Surely, His Heavens are a wonder, but is there value in claiming knowledge about things we can't comprehend?
I think we are so impressed with big that we forget to think about significance. Have you ever been to Texas? It's not really all that it's cracked up to be. There's a lot of dirt there. People don't brag much about the natural wonders or the great weather. That's because there isn't much of either. What they do brag about is how big the place is. I'll bet you didn't know that it's a longer drive from Dallas to El Paso, than it is from El Paso to Los Angeles. That's pretty big, but who really cares. Well maybe the guy driving from Dallas to LA, but not me.
We Christians have a problem with science. It seems as though science is at odds with the Christian community as a whole. Maybe, it's the creation thing, or the miracles of Jesus, or the believing in things unprovable. The Christian reaction to this, by and large, is to dispute science in the areas where science chooses to conflict. I just don't see the point. As believers aren't we believing God along with believing in Him. Shouldn't any community of theorists who pretend to offer alternative explanations for the existence we all share be ignored? Why have conflict? They're wrong, aren't they?
Here's where I follow up on my earlier writing entitled, "Patrick O'brian." I recommend you read that before going any further here. I've also got a rebuttal to Cindy's comments on the same article.
First, Cindy. In your comments you suggest that while my thesis that Heaven is a place beyond time, where there is no time, is disagreeable to your views. You say, (I'm paraphrasing,) that heaven is the place where time goes on undefiled by the decay of sin. A Holy version of time. You also thought little of my "Hell is nothing but time" notion. You likened Hell to a place without time, who's inhabitants bear the full weight of the decay of sin without end. I'd say you had me waivering there for a while, that is until I rememberd that one word you relied on so much in making your point. Decay. Unless I'm mistaken, in virtually all its forms, decay processes all have one commen catalyst. Time. Yes, Heaven is free of the decay of sin, because where there is no time, decay can't happen. Hell on the other hand, is full of the ravages of decay. Decay's primary element is time. Therefore, I humbly submit that time is in abundance down there.
Let's go back to that backyard scene and pull out the old calculator. Sorry Billy, you'll need a TI model, because the numbers get pretty big. Science guesses that Betelguese is a million light years away. So we multiply the speed of light, (we're told it's 186,000 miles per second,) by 60 seconds, x 60 minutes, x 24 hours, x 365 days. According to my abacus, that's 5,676,480,000,000 miles. light will go 5.7 quadrillion miles in a year. Go ahead, you multiply that by a million. I wore holes in my socks trying to count that high.
In Sunday school, we were so proud of our gifts of recall, but none of us ever stopped to think of how futile this all is. I for one can't even conceive of light traveling. My mind tries, but I have to eventualy take someone elses word for it. I can't conceive of a million anything either. I know it's a lot, but my mind would have a hard time determining if a massive pile of apples contained 100,000 or 1,000,000. I'd assume you knew if you told me with authority. God created the Heavens and the Earth. Unless we obtain new information to the contrary, we must assume that He did so for His glory. His glory must be perceived if it is to be glorious. So we were placed here to perceive His glory. Are there billions and billions of stars out there really? If you say so. All I know is that I see a multitude of the Heavenly Host.
We love to be amazed. We'll accept anything if it's packaged well. Ethereal music and beautiful pictures of distant galaxies make us gape at the TV screen and feel small. We feel insignificant. We are humbled by the sheer numbers. We come to think the Earth isn't the center of the universe after all. We're stuck in the outer arm of a typical spiral galaxy. There are so many stars, how could there not be other inhabited planets. Steven Hawking, famous scientist, mathemetician, and all-around genius, recently was featured in the news. He claimed, with certainty, that there definitely was a multitude of life bearing planets, probably in the millions. Because he's such a smarty, the mainstream media prints his opinions. Because of his fame and reputation I want to believe him. who's the bigger fool, him or me. If he said there were 823,655 apples in that pile, who would argue? Not me. He's Steven Hawking.
Here's a qoute for you. C.S. Lewis wrote his Space Trilogy in the 1940's. The second book has a scene at the end where the hero reveals to the King of a new civilization on Perelandra, (Venus,) how men on Earth have surrendered to science even on the point of what made Earth the center of everything.
"I am full of doubts and ignorance," said Ransom, (our hero). "In our world those who know Maleldil, (Jesus,) at all believe His coming down to us and being a man is the central happening of all that happens. If you take that from me, whither will you lead me? Surely not to the enemies talk which thrusts my world and my race into a remote corner and gives me a universe, with no centre at all, but millions of worlds that lead nowhere or (what is worse) to more and more worlds for ever, and comes over me with numbers and empty spaces and repetitions and asks me to bow down before bigness."
Lewis saw it in 1943. Just like I'm telling you now. Anybody with a PHD can make a press release and find a willing audience. The more fantastic the story, the more we're willing to believe it. Is the Earth really 4 billion years old? Um, I guess so. If that's what they say. Can the Hubbel telescope take pictures of a galaxy that is 35 million light years away? Sure, why not? If I don't know what to believe, I'll believe anything you say, if you appear smarter than me, (not too difficult.)
Now to wrap up my other article. If time truly is an earthly enterprise created by God for man on Earth, then we must agree that time doesn't matter in outer space. The light year is defined as the distance light travels in one year. No time in space, then our measurement is void. 186,000 miles per second doesn't mean anything when there are no seconds, much less years. Do the math. Anything times nothing equals nothing.
Maybe my math is weird, but I think that attempting to measure the heavens is fruitless at best, and certainly irrelevant to our lives. What is relevant is that when God cast the stars out into the night sky, they landed in specific places to be viewed by men. Ancient mariners used the stars to navigate. The moon, sun, and planets established our Calendar and created the seasons by which all life depends for its cycles. Stars form constellations by which we develop a chart of their locations and know their names. We even get to sit in the back yard of an evening, and dream of knowing all that is out there to know. We revere our God for the splendor of His majesty.
When Billy's Dad told him how far away that star was, I wish I was there. I'd have told him, "Billy, that star probably is really a long way away, but for you and me, God didn't put it a jillion light years away, it's right there, over that really big fir tree."
Doesn't Christ say that God confounds the wisdom of the wise with the foolishness of the gospel? Let it be so in our lives.
His glory,
Joe
"Which one Billy?" replies His Dad.
"That one there, over that tall fir tree."
"Well son, that one's called Betelguese. It's the brightest star in the night sky. See, it is the shoulder of the constellation 'Orion'."
Billy is alive with wonder as he dreams of maybe traveling to the limits of the universe one day. "It must be pretty close to be so bright, huh Dad?"
"Actually son, even though Betelguese is probably the closest of all stars, its's still a million light years away," says Dad, as he follows through with a short lesson on light years and the speed of light, and other details Billy will be proud to relate to all his buddies at school. Billy's dreams are dashed, though, realizing he''ll never be able to go that far.
Silly story, I know. Not long ago, I was at Sunday school along with all the good folks there at church. In talking about the grandure of God's universe, I was taken by how quickly we all could spit out facts about the size and breadth of the universe. We were enlightening each other on the facts and figures. One would say, "a million light years." Another would quickly interject, "a light year is the distance light would travel over the course of a year." Yet another tossed out, "186,000 miles per second, ya know." I found it interesting that we all felt so sure of things. Maybe, we should leave the astrophysics out of our discussions about God. Surely, His Heavens are a wonder, but is there value in claiming knowledge about things we can't comprehend?
I think we are so impressed with big that we forget to think about significance. Have you ever been to Texas? It's not really all that it's cracked up to be. There's a lot of dirt there. People don't brag much about the natural wonders or the great weather. That's because there isn't much of either. What they do brag about is how big the place is. I'll bet you didn't know that it's a longer drive from Dallas to El Paso, than it is from El Paso to Los Angeles. That's pretty big, but who really cares. Well maybe the guy driving from Dallas to LA, but not me.
We Christians have a problem with science. It seems as though science is at odds with the Christian community as a whole. Maybe, it's the creation thing, or the miracles of Jesus, or the believing in things unprovable. The Christian reaction to this, by and large, is to dispute science in the areas where science chooses to conflict. I just don't see the point. As believers aren't we believing God along with believing in Him. Shouldn't any community of theorists who pretend to offer alternative explanations for the existence we all share be ignored? Why have conflict? They're wrong, aren't they?
Here's where I follow up on my earlier writing entitled, "Patrick O'brian." I recommend you read that before going any further here. I've also got a rebuttal to Cindy's comments on the same article.
First, Cindy. In your comments you suggest that while my thesis that Heaven is a place beyond time, where there is no time, is disagreeable to your views. You say, (I'm paraphrasing,) that heaven is the place where time goes on undefiled by the decay of sin. A Holy version of time. You also thought little of my "Hell is nothing but time" notion. You likened Hell to a place without time, who's inhabitants bear the full weight of the decay of sin without end. I'd say you had me waivering there for a while, that is until I rememberd that one word you relied on so much in making your point. Decay. Unless I'm mistaken, in virtually all its forms, decay processes all have one commen catalyst. Time. Yes, Heaven is free of the decay of sin, because where there is no time, decay can't happen. Hell on the other hand, is full of the ravages of decay. Decay's primary element is time. Therefore, I humbly submit that time is in abundance down there.
Let's go back to that backyard scene and pull out the old calculator. Sorry Billy, you'll need a TI model, because the numbers get pretty big. Science guesses that Betelguese is a million light years away. So we multiply the speed of light, (we're told it's 186,000 miles per second,) by 60 seconds, x 60 minutes, x 24 hours, x 365 days. According to my abacus, that's 5,676,480,000,000 miles. light will go 5.7 quadrillion miles in a year. Go ahead, you multiply that by a million. I wore holes in my socks trying to count that high.
In Sunday school, we were so proud of our gifts of recall, but none of us ever stopped to think of how futile this all is. I for one can't even conceive of light traveling. My mind tries, but I have to eventualy take someone elses word for it. I can't conceive of a million anything either. I know it's a lot, but my mind would have a hard time determining if a massive pile of apples contained 100,000 or 1,000,000. I'd assume you knew if you told me with authority. God created the Heavens and the Earth. Unless we obtain new information to the contrary, we must assume that He did so for His glory. His glory must be perceived if it is to be glorious. So we were placed here to perceive His glory. Are there billions and billions of stars out there really? If you say so. All I know is that I see a multitude of the Heavenly Host.
We love to be amazed. We'll accept anything if it's packaged well. Ethereal music and beautiful pictures of distant galaxies make us gape at the TV screen and feel small. We feel insignificant. We are humbled by the sheer numbers. We come to think the Earth isn't the center of the universe after all. We're stuck in the outer arm of a typical spiral galaxy. There are so many stars, how could there not be other inhabited planets. Steven Hawking, famous scientist, mathemetician, and all-around genius, recently was featured in the news. He claimed, with certainty, that there definitely was a multitude of life bearing planets, probably in the millions. Because he's such a smarty, the mainstream media prints his opinions. Because of his fame and reputation I want to believe him. who's the bigger fool, him or me. If he said there were 823,655 apples in that pile, who would argue? Not me. He's Steven Hawking.
Here's a qoute for you. C.S. Lewis wrote his Space Trilogy in the 1940's. The second book has a scene at the end where the hero reveals to the King of a new civilization on Perelandra, (Venus,) how men on Earth have surrendered to science even on the point of what made Earth the center of everything.
"I am full of doubts and ignorance," said Ransom, (our hero). "In our world those who know Maleldil, (Jesus,) at all believe His coming down to us and being a man is the central happening of all that happens. If you take that from me, whither will you lead me? Surely not to the enemies talk which thrusts my world and my race into a remote corner and gives me a universe, with no centre at all, but millions of worlds that lead nowhere or (what is worse) to more and more worlds for ever, and comes over me with numbers and empty spaces and repetitions and asks me to bow down before bigness."
Lewis saw it in 1943. Just like I'm telling you now. Anybody with a PHD can make a press release and find a willing audience. The more fantastic the story, the more we're willing to believe it. Is the Earth really 4 billion years old? Um, I guess so. If that's what they say. Can the Hubbel telescope take pictures of a galaxy that is 35 million light years away? Sure, why not? If I don't know what to believe, I'll believe anything you say, if you appear smarter than me, (not too difficult.)
Now to wrap up my other article. If time truly is an earthly enterprise created by God for man on Earth, then we must agree that time doesn't matter in outer space. The light year is defined as the distance light travels in one year. No time in space, then our measurement is void. 186,000 miles per second doesn't mean anything when there are no seconds, much less years. Do the math. Anything times nothing equals nothing.
Maybe my math is weird, but I think that attempting to measure the heavens is fruitless at best, and certainly irrelevant to our lives. What is relevant is that when God cast the stars out into the night sky, they landed in specific places to be viewed by men. Ancient mariners used the stars to navigate. The moon, sun, and planets established our Calendar and created the seasons by which all life depends for its cycles. Stars form constellations by which we develop a chart of their locations and know their names. We even get to sit in the back yard of an evening, and dream of knowing all that is out there to know. We revere our God for the splendor of His majesty.
When Billy's Dad told him how far away that star was, I wish I was there. I'd have told him, "Billy, that star probably is really a long way away, but for you and me, God didn't put it a jillion light years away, it's right there, over that really big fir tree."
Doesn't Christ say that God confounds the wisdom of the wise with the foolishness of the gospel? Let it be so in our lives.
His glory,
Joe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)