Causation v. Correlation: Busy and Insane

It's funny how strange situations can instil in us emotions we didn't know we had. This week has been strange. There were some very hard things that happened this week: cancelling projects, turning in projects, failing to teach sufficiently, friends living in sin, etc. (there's a lot in that "etc."). However, some pretty great things happened as well: bonus points for students, turning in projects (yes, it's on both lists), teaching enthusiastically, being loved by students, typing creative emails, catching new reptiles for the life list, bird watching, etc. (there's a lot in the "etc." again). I've been ecstatic, completely depressed, in love, angry and dark, compassionate, worn out, etc. (I don't need to keep saying things in parentheses after the "etc." do I?). At least three times I've paused to basically rethink my entire life. I start asking myself hard questions that I cannot answer: What music should I listen too? Should I buy more pets or sell the ones I've got? Should I rely on music to lift my spirits? Should I watch movies at all? Should I be a hermit? Should I be a street preacher? Should I forget my troubles? Should I ignore my troubles? Should I face my troubles? Should I control my troubles? Should I get rid of my troubles? It can get pretty dramatic up there in the organ between my ears. It's kinda sad.
In any case, just wanted to let everyone know that I am still alive, but probably insane. I've been so busy these days--it's not natural. I've been writing so many papers and other class-related things that I feel like I need to include a parenthetical reference after every sentence I type (Bomske 2016). Periodically I wake up in the night and gasp: Did I remember to inoculate all the agars with bacteria?! I admit that sometimes I survive off the hope of a quieter life someday. After this semester, after graduation, or after I die? Who knows? Comment if you pity me. Or comment anyways.

Other Human Species and Biblical History

Very likely the most interesting aspect of origins as a study is the origins of our own species. Anthropologists have searched tirelessly for the missing link between humans and apes. Even the great American inspiration for Indiana Jones, Roy Chapman Andrews, was drawn to Mongolia to search for mankind's ancestor. And some of the most self-centered, deceitful acts in all of paleontology were over a few measly scraps of bone thought to be human ancestors.
I don't think there is any gray area between humanity and ape. From Homo erectus to Homo sapiens, Homo is distinctly human. And from Australopithecus to Gorilla, apes are distinctly ape. Certainly some apes possess characteristics more characteristic of humans and vice versa but, all together, they are distinct. I don't even think they have a common ancestor, evolutionarily speaking. Most of the scraps currently believed to be intermediate between the two are to fragmentary to say for certain exactly what they are, so, after years of time wasted on paleoanthropology, I don't think they will ever find a fossil link.
And I don't think there is enough time in earth's history for us to share a common ancestor with apes. While conventional scientists presume an Earth of millions of years in age, I presume a much shorter lifespan for Earth. My reasons for this are complex and supported by a lot of subjective evidence. I'll save all that for another post. I do hesitate to put an exact number on the age of the Earth, however.
To answer the question, "Where did we come from?" I think the easy answer is, simply put: God created us. However, that answer certainly doesn't make any connections between what we know about the paleontology and history of early humans. I think most rational people would agree that the Bible is a historical document, to say the least, and among historical documents, it is among the most complete as far as a description of the origins of humanity and it is the certainly the most widely believed among historical descriptions of our origins. Not to mention the Son of God accepted it as history (see Matthew 10:15, 12:40-41, 19:3-6, and 24:38-39; Mark 10:3-9; Luke 4:25-27, 11:50-51, and 17:28-32; John 3:14, 5:45-47, and 6:32-49; etc.). Following Jesus' example, I use the Bible as if it were a historical document.
I find it interesting that little attempt to rationally tie fellows like Homo erectus and H. neanderthalensis with known history were made until 2012. A great article was written for Answers magazine that year (Snelling & Matthews 2012) which explained these extinct species within the framework of a biblical history. It was a very interesting article and I encourage you to read it here. Generally speaking, I agreed with this article. However, there was some disconnect between the nations that stemmed from Noah's sons, ancient people like Homo erectus, and later peoples like those in early Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Before the tower of Babel, people were primarily accumulated in one place. This means that the nations described as stemming from the sons of Noah must be in a general sense, and not in the distinct, immediate segregation that we usually think of. This would also mean that racial distinction did not arise among people until after the tower of Babel. Assuming that people did not spread around the earth before Babel, Homo erectus must have arisen after this time (their fossils are very widespread). So all the people of Babel must have been of an H. erectus, or earlier, form. Only after this, as fossil evidence indicates, did forms like H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens arise (see note about evolution). These differences were probably due to adaptations caused, largely, by the isolation of different populations (founder effect). With the assimilation and disappearance of neanderthals, Homo sapiens pushed on to diversify into ancient history as we know it, from the Egypt to Babylon, to Israel. This theory makes sense in light of all historical, paleontological, and archeological considerations except one.
The lifespans and chronologies found in the Bible indicate that many of the first people off Noah's ark, such as Noah's sons, were still alive when the earliest "civilizations" were taking root. Apparently, people like Shem, who are presumably of a pre-erectus type, could have met with Abraham, an essentially modern H. sapiens. How could so many distinct human forms, requiring many, many generations, diversify so rapidly under the shadow of their still living forefathers? It is possible that the Bible records the ages of exceptional family lines, possibly obtaining extraordinary ages because of their closeness to God. However, it is unlikely that the thousands of generations presumably needed to develop H. erectus into H. sapiens would fit into the lifespan of a few hundred years.
Because this seems to be the only potential problem with the theory, it seems likely that many generations did pass while the patriarchs lived on, enjoying their long lives. Also, the presumed number of generations may not be necessary as isolations of populations can result in very rapid diversification in a matter of just a few generations. A combination of these two possibilities certainly seems to provide a justification of the explanation presented by Snelling and Matthews in their article and until a better explanation presents itself, I hold to this one.
Would you agree? Leave a comment for me below or on my google+ page with your opinion and the reasons for it. Were H. erectus exploring the world before Babel? Are there gaps in the genealogies of the Bible? What do you think?

Note: I have avoided the word "evolution" in this paper because of the nature of many of those who will read this. Many Christians have an aversion to the word because acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution, as it applies to the origin of all life from a common ancestor, conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. However, the principle of evolution as change, adaptation, and diversification among species is an observational aspect of biology that few can deny. Additionally, humans evolve just like any other living thing would, though I have chosen to replace the word with substitutes like "adapt" or "arise." Some people may be offended by the concept of human evolution because of the deep philosophical attachments that bog it down in secular thinking.

References:
Ham, Ken. 2006. "Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?" The New Answers Book 1. Ken Ham (general editor). Master Books, Inc.: Green Forest, AR.

Snelling, A. A., and M. Matthews. 2012. "When did Cavemen Life? Finding a Home for Cavemen." Answers 7(2): 50-55.

Parable of the Sower: Thorns in My Life

I was reading in Matthew this evening and came across the parable of the sower in 13:1-22. If you need a refresher on what it's all about just re-read verses 18-22. I'm not going to summarize here. What really stuck out to me this time through was the seed that fell in the thorns. Sometimes I feel a lot like a plant growing up among thorns, trying to choke out my spirit and fellowship with God.
We often plant our own thorns, don't we? Jesus mentioned "worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth," but I can think of a couple more things that draw our hearts and minds away from our Creator. Worldly music, secular movies, trouble-making friends-- all things that we place or keep in our lives by choice. Yet, they are some of the most prevalent things that keep my mind distracted with the things of this world. Pray that I can work them out and have the discretion and wisdom to know when God isn't participating!

Philippians: A Reminder to Live in Love and Faith

A really good practice is to read through a whole epistle in the Bible in one sitting. As a Bible study with a couple of my friends this evening, I did just that. From start to finish, we read the book of Philippians. A book of encouragement and friendly reminder, Philippians is a light-hearted read that lifts the soul and encourages the faithful heart. Unlike many of his other epistles, Paul had little to ride the Philippians for except a few reminders that he knew they already were aware of (Philippians 3:1). One verse that often gets singled out in studies on Philippians is 2:12, which states, "Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling..." (emphasis mine). Someone brought this verse up in our meeting and simply laid it on the floor. "What do you think it means?" he asked generically, testing the waters. Equally cautious, I prefaced my opinion with a generic response. "Just like any verse taken out of context," I said, "this verse has a tendency to be misused." Observing the nods of agreement, I went on. "Some people use the phrase 'work out your salvation' to say that 'salvation' is dependant on our ability to fulfill 'works.' I don't think this is the case. In context, the point of the verse is that we must be humble and fearful to be sure that we are walking in a way that demonstrates our 'salvation.' We often use the word 'salvation' in a very trite, religious way. Reserving it for references to eternal salvation only, as opposed to eternity in Hell. I think Paul is using it more simply and literally here, just the way the word means as it relates to our salvation from our sins. He is telling us to continue to be humble and fearful before God so we don't fall back into our 'old man.' You kind of have to read the whole sentence, which doesn't stop at the end of verse twelve. 'Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.' If I were to paraphrase, it might say something like, 'Be cautious and fear God because he is the one in control of your salvation.'" All in all, it was a fairly political, diplomatic response. I also discussed some verses in Ezekiel 18 which talk about a similar concept to this question of "loosing your salvation." It states in verses 21-24 that a man who lives wickedly his whole life but later repents of his sin and turns to God will be saved, but a righteous man who does right all the days of his life but, before the end, rejects God and sins, that man will die. It is a bit of both, I explained. From God's perspective, everything is set in stone because he knows our hearts, tendencies, and all things, regardless of what we tell ourselves. But from our perspective, we must be careful we are not like the righteous man of Ezekiel who sinned after a good life and was condemned for it.

Understand your own Assumptions

I recently read an article in the Institute for Creation Research's periodical Acts & Facts titled "Devils, Dinosaurs, and Squirrel Fossils," by Brian Thomas. Normally, as a creationist, I am very supportive of ICR's publication but, in this case, it would seem that Thomas' presuppositional expectations have trumped his biological research training. The article begins with the statement: "The concept of dinosaurs living in a distant time populated by unique and now mostly extinct plants and animals has captured generations of students and moviegoers, but actual fossil finds keep contradicting this view." Unfortunately, this first sentence is not true, taken the way it is meant. The ecosystems of dinosaurs were "populated by unique and now mostly extinct plants and animals." The key word there being "mostly." It is actually kind of obvious. The vast majority of vertebrates uncovered from dinosaur-bearing fossil sites are, well, dinosaurs. And the habitats of the dinosaurs, dominated by tree ferns and cycads, are unlike most modern ecosystems. It is true that many of the plants and invertebrates found with dinosaurs are alive today, but the assemblages seen in the fossil record are completely unlike those of today. For some examples of a complete list of taxa found in a dinosaur ecosystem, see my paleobiology blog. But to say dinosaur ecosystems were "unique," is a very subjective and relative opinion.

My real beef with the article was Thomas' examples of animals that have been found with dinosaur fossils and are still alive today. He apparently believes that these animals should be synonymous with today's mammals, but that is a very naive assumption. First, he mentions the remarkable Repenomamus robustus fossil, found with young dinosaurs inside its stomach. In Thomas' article, it is implied that Repenomamus is an extinct representative of the Tasmanian devil. Ecologically, perhaps it is. But taxonomically, it is certainly not. Repenomamus has no living relatives and the osteology (features of the bones) are most like that of other extinct mammals (triconodonts). Perhaps Thomas' misinterpretation of the animals identity is due to the fact that it is often illustrated to look something like a Tasmanian devil externally. It probably did, but the bones deny any taxonomic affinity.

Next on Thomas' list are the Euharamiyida. Once again, this is a taxonomically distinct group that superficially resembled squirrels in some ways. Thomas claims that they are indeed "plain old squirrels," but that is untrue. Thomas seems to look no further than the artistic renderings of these creatures. Osteologically, euharamiyidans are most similar to multituberculate mammals, another completely extinct group known for their somewhat rodent-like incisors (but entirely unique molars). Both euharamiyidans and multituberculates looked like rodents superficially, but rodents supposedly outcompeted those groups before the Ice Age.

Thomas briefly mentions "shrew-like" mammals that lived alongside dinosaurs, but wisely avoids concluding that they really were shrews. Rather, they only "closely resemble treeshrews." Closely may be to strong a word. I am personally not familiar with any treeshrew-like mammals from dinosaur-bearing fossil sites, but I am aware that the shrew or hedgehog-like tenrec, which is alive today in Madagascar, has been found in dinosaur-bearing sediments. I'm surprised Thomas didn't mention an indisputable example of a "living fossil" mammal like the tenrec.

Castorocauda was described as analogous to modern beavers in a Science article, as Thomas points out. However, Thomas suggests that "it was a beaver." This is again a misinterpretation of an animals that only superficially resembles a beaver. Really, the tail is the only resemblance to a beaver: the teeth are more like those of a seal. In fact, it is about as far a mammal can be from a beaver as any. As a member of the Cynodontia, it is not often considered a mammal proper but, rather, a "mammal-like reptile" or a "mammaliafrom." It is believed that mammals evolved from creatures like Castorocauda but calling Castorocauda a mammal at all may be stretching things. It possessed many characteristics of reptiles. It just seems that the media is more excited about the animal's beavertail than anything else, so they forgot to mention that it isn't even a true mammal.

The final fossil on Thomas' list is Vintana. He quotes the media authoritatively as they declare an "ancient groundhog-like mammal discovered in Madagascar." And groundhog-like it was. But to say it was a groundhog is extremely speculative at best. First, only a skull is known for the species. As far as one can tell from a single skull, it's resemblance to groundhogs begins and ends with the incisors. A quick look at the skull shatters any hope that it is at all related to a groundhog. Even the way its muscles would be forced to move for operating its jaws is vastly different from any rodent. The skull actually looks very little like a groundhog's, comparatively speaking. Vintana was a unique animal with only a couple relatives, known exclusively from the fossil record. Like some of Thomas' other misidentified mammals, it was similar to the extinct multituberculate group.

Tracks are not usually a good point of evidential proof for living mammals alongside dinosaurs, but Thomas mentions some that he believes were opossum tracks, to his "non-expert eye." I am grateful that he is honest enough to admit that he is not an expert on the subject. And indeed he is not. I don't think Thomas intended to be dishonest or deceptive in any way for the writing of his article, but it demonstrated an appalling lack of thorough research. It is a warning to all of us creationists: we should never to be to quick to find "evidence" for our beliefs. "Evidence" seldom points clearly in any given direction--it is our interpretation that does the pointing. In Thomas' eagerness to find his expected and anticipated evidence for creationism (or his understanding of creationism), he potentially deceived many trusting readers who will parrot his false information to others. When word reaches secular scientists' ears, they will marvel at the ignorance of creationists. Let's avoid any misunderstandings and be more careful with our own presuppositions. In conclusion: "Squirrels, treeshrews, beavers, Tasmanian devils, and other rodent kinds" are not known as "fossils with dinosaurs." It might make you feel better to believe that, but there is no evidence for it. I wanted to let everyone know to avoid any potentially embarrassing conversations in the future.

References for Repenomamus:

Averianov, A.O., and A.V. Lopatin. 2011. "Phylogeny of Triconodonts and Symmetrodonts and the Origin of Extant Mammals." Doklady Biological Sciences 436(1): 32-35.

Li, J., Y. Wang, Y. Wang, and C. Li. 2001. "A New Family of Primitive Mammal from the Mesozoic of Western Liaoning, China." Chinese Science Bulletin 46(9): 782-785.

Montellano, M., J.A. Hopson, and J.M. Clark. 2008. "Late Early Jurassic Mammaliaforms from Huizachal Canyon, Tamaulipas, Mexico." Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 28(4): 1130-1143.

Reference for the Euharamiyida:

Bi, S., Y. Wang, J. Guan, X. Sheng, and J. Meng. 2014. "Three New Jurassic Euharamiuidan Species Reinforce Early Divergence of Mammals." Nature 514: 579-584.

References for Castorocauda

Ji, Q., Z.X. Luo, C.X. Yuan, A.R. Tabrum. 2006. "A Swimming Mammaliaform from the Middle Jurassic and Ecomorphological Diversification of Early Mammals." Science 311(5764): 1123-1127.

References for Vintana

Krause, D.W., S. Hoffmann, J.R. Wible, E.C. Kirk, J.A. Shultz, W. von Koenigswald, J.R. Groenke, J.B. Rossie, P.M. O'Connor, E.R. Seiffert, E.R. Dumont, W.L. Holloway, R.R. Rogers, L.J. Rahantarisoa, A.D. Kemp, and H. Andriamialison. 2014. "First Cranial Remains of a Gondwanatherian Mammal Reveal Remarkable Mosaicism." Nature 515: 512-517.

Devotional: How Do I Know I'm Saved (1 John)?

Funny that I'd think of this question again after my spiritual security post on my old blog. This should be similar to that one. This was prepared (on a 3x5 card) as a devotional for my prayer group at college. However, I never got to give it. To answer the question of "How do I know I'm saved?" I want to define it. One of the things I think of when people say, "saved" is "born again." That's what getting saved is. The old is gone the new has come. Unfortunately, most people have very trite, religious connotations they attach to the word "saved." It would have been interesting to hear what the guys in my prayer group thought "saved" was. A better question might be "What are you saved from?" Some might say Hell, but that's just a consequence. We are actually saved from sin. In that sense, the answer to the age old question of "How do I know I'm saved?" is easily answered. Are you saved from sin? Or are you still trapped by it? We can know, within ourselves, if we are saved or not, simply by looking at our lives. Do you keep going back to the same sin over and over again? Then you aren't saved from sin. It's the slave concept (Romans 6).

"Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything." 1 John 3:18-20 (NIV). How do we know if we belong to the truth? Love with actions and in truth, rather than just words. That is one way we can know if we are saved. The second part of this verse very accurately describes people who struggle with the concept of being saved (from sin). Our hearts condemn us. We wonder if what we've done (or haven't done) is keeping us from serving God (going to heaven). But God is greater than our hearts and our love and actions will be a testimony for or against our salvation. Does your heart condemn you?

"We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, 'I know him,' but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did." 1 John 2:3-6 (NIV). That lays out the question pretty clearly. This is how we know we are saved: you must be living as Jesus did. Jesus was sinless.

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8 (NIV). We are not without sin in and of ourselves, but, thanks be to God, He is able to save us from sin (Romans 7:24-25). But that is very fundamental. That's the gospel. Jesus saved us from our sins. Are you saved from yours?"

"Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or knows him." 1 John 3:4-6.

The Scientific Accuracy of Genesis

Sometimes Christian scientists are tempted to read rather deeply into certain passages. There are three that seem to get some attention in the hands of enthusiastic theorizers. First is Genesis 1:6-8. “And God said, ‘Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.’ So God made the vault and separated the water from under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault ‘sky.’ And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.” Most folks interested in creation science have heard about “the water canopy theory.” The idea is derived from these verses. It hypothesizes that the “water above” the sky was some kind of liquid or vapor “canopy,” such as an ozone layer, that contributed to a global tropical climate. Other less well-known theories hypothesize that this “water canopy” was actually much farther out in space, possibly encompassing more celestial bodies than just the Earth (the verses addressed below, Genesis 1:14-19, certainly seem to indicate that the planets and stars are within the “sky.” However, I think the solution could be far simpler than that. It helps to try to think with the mindset of those to whom the book was written—namely the Hebrew nation, under Moses’ command. When a comparatively ancient culture like the Israelites received this text, I doubt that they would have thought of the “vault” as anything beyond what they could see with their eyes. The water below, reflecting blue, looked like the blue sky above—the waters above. This seems overly simple and scientifically impossible at first glance, but is it really? Among the other gasses of Earth’s atmosphere, water vapor certainly makes up a portion (it is a greenhouse gas). Actually, I don’t think I would expect God to mention the various elements that make up the atmosphere because there weren’t even any names in human language for those things. Essentially, to the understanding of the day, it was water above. I don’t think God was being deceptive; but he might have been keeping it very simple.

There are other cases of God “oversimplifying” scientific concepts that we generally never think of as being a problem. “And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on earth.’ And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.” We all know that the moon does not actually give off light—it merely reflects the light of the sun. So was God deceptive? Absolutely not! Light is certainly shining from the moon and that, more than likely, fit within the cultural definition of a “light” in Biblical days. The scientific definitions and details of our modern understanding of science are of no importance here.

Finally, I would like to address this popular idea that there was no rain before the global flood. It is certainly possible that it never rained before the flood, but it probably didn’t cross the mind of the authors and readers of the Bible when it was written. The context of the source verse for this idea is actually subject to a lot of unnecessary controversy. “Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:5). It says, “the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth,” some like to quote. However, the context of the verse is a description of when “no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up.” I’m sure there were plants growing between the creation of man and the flood. But one might argue that it is chronologically ordered, I suppose, but that doesn’t work. The next verse says that God “formed the man.” So, man was created. If one had just read the previous chapter, it was abundantly clear that plants came before mankind. Rather, it seems to be simply a vague, non-detailed description of the world before a completed creation. Let me know what you think in the comments below, but it seems like God doesn’t value scientific detail as much as we might today.

The Sinner's Prayer

As a follow up to my last post, I wanted to address this issue of easy-believism a little more deeply. I've touched on this topic a number of times, including here. However, I haven't seen it as eloquently put as David Platt does in this video. Please watch and share with others.

Street Evangelism and Denominational Differences

Adapted from and inspired by a comment I left on a YouTube video of a street evangelist with a megaphone.

There is some confusion and controversy these days over public witnessing. I am hearing, more and more often from people that they "would never do something like that." The reasons vary from "it takes a special kind of person" to "Christians shouldn't force people to listen to them." However, like most things, it seems to be a balance. Personally, I have gone door-to-door trying to share the gospel with people. It was often a very enlightening experience for me, but not usually for those my companions and I were witnessing to. Let me explain.

I experience many different situations and became aware of three different groups of people. Most encouraging were fellow Christians. Often times, we would be invited in to visit with a brother or sister in Christ. I often found my faith strengthened greatly by these chance encounters. Interestingly, many of these other Christians were not from mainstream denominations. Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, Church of Christ members, and Baptists alike, in spite of their diverse personal beliefs, often had the same spirit. This observation led me to believe that no single denomination is superior to any other. If an individual person, regardless of their affiliations, has faith in Christ to save them, that person can be properly called a believer. And, not surprisingly, all of these people had one desire; to live by the Bible and depend on Jesus for salvation.

Unfortunately, many of the people I witnessed to did not share my views of such people. Many times, my companion (a conservative baptist) would spend hours trying to convert another fellow believer, simply because the other person believed that getting baptized was part of working out your salvation or that resting on the seventh day of the week was a good thing to do. I would hardly consider these things salvation issues but, it seems, most of the people I was with believed that if a person wasn't a baptist, they weren't Christian. I walked away thinking being a Baptist is a good indicator that one may need to look again at his or her own salvation.

The second group of people I encountered were those who had their own set of beliefs, and perhaps did consider themselves Christian, but were clearly trapped by their own pride or blindness. We encountered those claiming to be Christians who showed no fruit in their lives; they were on drugs, swore copiously, or had some other character flaw that they were making no attempt to correct. Others were firmly set in religion but had no faith in Christ. Many Catholics are this way along with some Baptist or Pentecostal individuals who have no idea what it means to be a Christian except, perhaps, that they attend a church. Most of these people did not want to discuss their religion with anyone. Buddhists, Muslims, and Atheists had a similar attitude as they were often more than happy to talk about our differences, but there was no chance of them ever changing their minds.
The last group of people I encountered were the "sinners." Encounters with hopeless drug addicts, alcoholics, prostitutes, gang leaders, and others usually left me feeling depressed. These people often already knew the truth but they were too deeply entrenched in their sin to escape, so they thought. I pray that my conversations with those people helped to rescue them from their pit, though I never witnessed it. Seeing their tears and desperation usually left me silent for the rest of the day. I am still very passionate about the message of God's power; He IS strong enough to save anyone from ANY sin.
After a year and a half, I had mixed feelings about evangelism. I wanted to help people escape from their sins, but I was disturbed by the division among those who called themselves Christians in America. Once, I watched my companion walk a woman through the gospel as she passively acknowledged that she "thought" what he said was true. At the end of it all, my companion declared, "Well, then, you are saved!" My heart dropped into my stomach. She had only demonstrated that she might have known what truth was. She never put her faith in Christ. I was sobered by the thought of how many false conversions there are int he world because of this easy-believism. As my mother used to say, many people go comfortably to Hell.
I stopped public witnessing for a time after that experience. It was difficult to watch my companion arguing with fellow Christians about trivial matters and then see him walk away gloating about how he hoped the other individual would one day see the light. I still witness to people the best way I know how, even in public places, but, as sad as it is, I cannot trust anyone to come with me. They may deviate from the Bible and chase "foolish controversies" (Titus 3:9) instead of proclaiming the gospel.
Recently I became involved in a certain street evangelist who very harshly proclaimed coming wrath for sinners. I agreed with some of what he said, but he had a lot of pride and was very rude and disrespectful to those he was trying to witness to. After thinking about it, I wrote what I believed to be a balanced Biblical reply.
I used to think that the practice of standing on a street corner and proclaiming the Bible to the lost was a commendable practice that took faith and courage. However, in the case of this man, it looked like it only took pride.
I understood that he was zealous in the preaching of Hell but we need to remember this warning: "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you -- unless, of course, you fail the test?" (Corinthians 13:5). I noticed a few things in his video (seen on youtube) that I wanted him to consider and pray about. If you want to read my comment (very similar to this post) or watch the video (WARNING: bad language) you can do so here. This man needs to remember that Jesus, although verbally hard on people who claimed to be God's people (e.g. Pharisees, such as in Matthew 3:6-8), was remarkably gentle on "sinners," such as the woman at the well (John 4:17-19), the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-12), the Pharisee Nicodemus (John 3), or even those who crucified Him (Luke 23:33-35). Considering that many of Jesus' encounters with "sinners" were quiet, one-on-one encounters, perhaps we should consider adopting a similar approach instead of pushing people away like the young, Christian man who clearly wanted to talk to the evangelist on the video. Remember to "let your gentleness be evident to all" (Philippians 4:5). "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness
and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander" (1 Peter 3:15, 16). Gentleness and respect. Even "sinners" need to be given respect, according to the Bible. Perhaps the young evangelist that tried to engage the street evangelist was trying to tell him something along these lines (he was obviously displeased with the megaphone man's aggressive style). However, we also need to keep in mind that, in North American Christianity, there is a lot of confusion and deception. That older street evangelist may have missed an opportunity to clarify some things for the younger man.
I understood that the street evangelist believed that he was no longer a sinner. And as long as he follows Christ, this is true. "The man who says, 'I know him,' but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:4). However, the possibility to slip back into a worldly way of thinking still remains, if we aren't vigilant. As Jesus said, "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41). And, as always, "if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defence -- Jesus Christ, the Righteous One" (1 John 2:1). Perhaps this man's lack of gentleness and respect for "sinners" is such a falling into sin. Thank God we do have a Righteous One who speaks on our behalf.
So, true, we WERE all sinners. However, we aren't anymore. But watch out! Or you may find that you have fallen, as seems to be the case with this street preacher.
The street evangelist was right to quote Jesus as a defence for preaching Hell (the young man in the video was under the misconception that Christ didn't preach about Hell). Jesus mentioned Hell at least a few times in his preaching. However, the young man found it difficult to listen to what the preacher said, considering his microphone was only a few inches from the young Christian's face. Remember gentleness and respect. Don't be one of those described in Psalm 17:10: "They close up their callous hearts, and their mouths speak with arrogance." I fear the street evangelist has drifted in that direction. When someone else left a comment warning him of pride and blindness ("take the log out of your own eye" - Matthew 7:5), he replied, "Yes, I took the log out of my own eye a long time ago..." Pray for this man and people like him so that they can test themselves and repent of their arrogance. And pray that we don't fall into a similar trap, but remain humble as the world around us grows wicked.
Another point of confusion among the comments bellow the video was the issue of alcoholic beverages. To be clear on this, the Bible doesn't necessarily say that it is wrong to drink wine (beer), but it does explicitly say that getting drunk is wrong and sinful (Ephesians 5:18).
I hope this has built you up.

Spiritual Security

Can I lose my salvation? Strangely, this is a question nearly anyone raised in a Christian home asks at some point. In many of the churches I've been in, I have heard, quite emphatically, "You cannot lose your salvation." However, this statement means very little unless the meaning of "salvation" is exposed for its true meaning. First, the Bible never says we need to "get" saved. I like confronting conservative Baptists with this statement: "No one has to get saved." It makes there jaws drop because, in their minds, I have just stated that Jesus Christ is not needed for people to enter eternal life. But that's not what I mean. Let me explain.
The Bible never says "get saved." Never. Rather, it says, "be saved" multiple times (well over 30 in the New Testament books). So salvation, as far as it applies to a sinner's conversion, is a state of being. Salvation is not dependant on a choice one made in the past. God sums up this idea in the book of Ezekiel (33:12-16).

"Therefore, sone of man, say to your countrymen, 'The righteousness of the righteous man will not save him when he disobeys, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to fall when he turns from it. The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness.' If I tell the righteous man that he will surely live, but then he trusts in his righteousness and does evil, none of the righteous things he has done will be remembered; he will die for the evil he has done. And if I say to the wicked man, 'You will surely die,' but he then turns from his sin and does what is just and right-- if he gives back what he took in pledge for a loan, returns what he has stolen, follows the decrees that give life, and does no evil, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the sins he has committed will be remembered against him. He has done what is just and right; he will surely live."

Therefore, if someone is righteous and then turns to sin and dies in that state, God will judge him. "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The man who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to pleas the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life" (Galatians 6:7, 8). So the Bible is very clear. If you sin, expect destruction (Hell) and if you live by faith in the Spirit, expect eternal life (Heaven). Don't be a fool and bank on a past decision to save you from Hell. What you do right now is what God is concerned with.
People who seem to think they can sin and escape Hell without sincere repentance often quote John 10:28 and 29, where Jesus, speaking of the eternal life He gives, says, "No one can snatch them out of my hand" and "no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand." They might also mention Romans 8:35-39 which says, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: 'For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.' No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Of course, the context of that verse is obvious. Hardships and persecutions shouldn't worry us because God can protect us. But notice that no sins appear on the list. And the John verses are also clear; Jesus is talking about those God has given him (of course, this brings up the whole "election vs. free-will" debate, that will have to wait for another post).
In summary, because I am running out of time; don't be a fool and keep sinning. Repent before it is too late. Don't think God will be merciful to you simply because you knew what truth was. You need to put your faith in that truth (Jesus' saving grace) and live by it. Secondly, God is more powerful than you could ever imagine. So when you do put your faith in Him, He has power ample enough to keep you from sin, if you just rely on His strength. So the answer to "Can I lose my salvation" is "yes" and "no." To God, who knows all things beginning and end, it is a resounding "no." But to man, who is finite in so manny ways, the answer is "yes." As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13:5, "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?"

Psalm 116

Sometimes I become exasperated with people. I might overhear someone in the hall telling dirty jokes. And they call themselves Christians? My friends might become angry with one another. Can't we all just get along? One denomination accuses another of heresy. Aren't we all brothers and sisters in Christ? Then, before I know it, I'm giving everyone the cold shoulder; I've embodied the traits that I hate and I've become a fellow grouch. Sometimes I just hate being human.
It was one of those times that I crawled back to my room in the dorms after a hard day of tests. My brother tried to give me some constructive advice but I accused him of being a religious parrot of doctrine and tried to ignore him as I crawled into bed.
I had made a promise to myself at the beginning of the semester that I would read at least one psalm every night. So I got to work on it. Immediately, the words of Psalm 116 started to convict me of my sin. I was desperate, and the psalm spoke my heart. I had been zealous for God when I saw wickedness around me. "I love the Lord, for he heard my voice; he heard my cry for mercy" (verse 1). I will always praise the Lord for his kindness to me. I cannot love him enough for what he does for me day to day. "Then I called on the name of the Lord: 'O Lord, save me'" (verse 4)! Sometimes I feel hopeless. It is only when I cry to God that I again feel at peace and he fills me up with his sustaining love and I overflow, splashing it back into his lap with joy. "The Lord protects the simplehearted; when I was in great need, he saved me. Be at rest once more, O my soul, for the Lord has been good to you" (verses 6 and 7). I am not a simplehearted person, naturally. I always try to reason my way through things. However, sometimes God just needs us to empty ourselves of our own knowledge and lean on him. Once we stop struggling to hold up our own head, God will hold it up for us. Why he would do this for a mortal man is beyond me, but he also sent Jesus to die for our sins, and that blows my mind. "And in my dismay I said, 'All men are liars.' How can I repay the Lord for all his goodness to me" (verse 11)? I have often been in this situation where I become so fed up with the shortcomings of men that I throw humanity to the wind. Of course, all men and women are going to let us down at some point, but we need to remember how good God has been to us for our many shortcomings. Let's demonstrate the same sort of patience for other men. There is so much more to this psalm, I encourage you to read the whole thing.

A Biblical View of the Animal World

This was a ribbon snake I caught on February 15th, in Tarkiln Bayou Preserve State Park, Florida. Unfortunately, snakes receive a lot of unnecessary flack in western culture. One of the primary reasons for this is religious superstition. We've all seen the pictures of the snake tempting Eve, but none of us have ever read it in our Bible. How so? Read on.

While at college, I was asked, as a part of my zoology class, to choose five Bible verses that I believed were crucial to a Biblical understanding of animals and write about my the reasons I chose those verses. Here is what I came up with:

Genesis 1:28

And God blessed them and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 3:14

And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon they belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of they life:

Leviticus 11:46

This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:

Psalm 147:9

He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry.

Matthew 6:26

Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

The twenty-eighth verse of the first chapter of Genesis records God’s first command to mankind: Fill the Earth and rule over the animals. Often Christians are tempted to conclude that this dominion is a license to exploit and use for our own personal enjoyment and pleasure. The reason so many acquire this perspective is found in verse six of chapter three. We seldom give thought to what we would consider a good ruler, someone who looks out for the interests of his subjects. Verse fourteen of chapter three records what is often incorrectly stated as a curse on a snake, thus giving excuse for men to abuse this amazingly designed creature on the premise that it was “cursed of God.” Simply reading the verse reveals that this cannot be the case; it would eat dust, and no snakes do that. Also, nowhere is it mentioned that the cursed creature would loose its legs. Indeed the phrase “upon thy belly thou shalt go” caries the idea of crawling, not slithering, which requires legs. It is to bad that it does not occur to most people that the word translated “serpent” is also translated as “dragon” in other parts of the Old Testament. It is not surprising then that Satan is referred to as a dragon in Revelation. Additionally, the context of the verse reveals that this is, in fact, a curse on Satan prophesying of Christ’s coming. So there is no Biblical excuse for women or anyone else to treat snakes with contempt. In Leviticus, chapter 11 a list of animals is given and the clean ones are stated as being “living.” This word in Hebrew is nephesh and caries the idea of a soul-life. Such nephesh living things are treated with more respect than other living things such as plants, which are merely described as “withering” rather than truly dying in the Bible. Interestingly, the list in Leviticus includes insects (verse twenty-two). Thus, in a Biblical perspective of life, to kill a grasshopper is equivalent to killing a horse. Finally, verses in Matthew chapter six and Psalm 147, in verse nine, record that God himself takes interest in and cares for the needs of animals. It is indeed a comfort to Christians that God loves us so much (as is the thrust of the Matthew verses) but many people miss the fact that God takes interest in the death of even a common bird sold at the market. Christians, likewise, should take their God-given responsibility to watch over God’s creatures seriously.

Speech: Should I Talk About It?

Today my pastor led the congregation through the book of Proverbs (and a bit in James) as we explored the topic of "the tongue." There were many good proverbs about speech, and many have been lingering in my mind. I know most of my readers probably read their Bibles regularly (and most go to the same church as me) but here are the verses that stuck out at me, and some of my thoughts about them.

"A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly." Proverbs 12:23

I had the first half of the one from chapter 12 already underlined in my Bible. It is a proverb that has always made me think. Knowledge is a good thing, right? Why should I keep it to myself? Well, the truth is, knowledge is only worth something to the listener if that person was searching for it. No one, if they are honest with themselves, wants to know my opinion on feathered dinosaurs or spider intelligence, or much else for that matter.

"Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue." Proverbs 17:28

Ever notice how those quiet people who never expound any of their vast knowledge and genius tend to be the greatest encouragement to us? When they do open their mouth to tell us what they know, it is really worth saying. It is good to get knowledge (read the rest of Proverbs), but telling people what you've learned is not always appropriate. I guess it is better to just keep my knowledge to myself... but that would defeat the purpose of this entire site. The whole reason for blogging is to tell the world of my knowledge and opinions.

"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions." Proverbs 18:2

Have you ever thought that perhaps we value our own opinions too highly? I don't know about you, but, just being honest, I certainly do delight to give out my opinions. I guess that makes me a fool. Should I lay off blogging? Perhaps I should pursue a quieter life. Maybe when Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians 4:11-13 he really meant it when he said, "Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with our hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependant on anybody." It seems to be an attitude. Can we blog and keep an attitude of quietness? I think we can.

"A man finds joy in giving an apt reply -- and how good is a timely word!" Proverbs 15:23

I'm so glad that my pastor ended on this note; I was ready to get out the duck tape and forever seal my lips! I started this blog because I felt there was a need for material on these topics from a Biblical perspective. I am to busy to write the books I wish had been around when I was a kid, so I post little bits of what I imagine these books would have been. While it is true that sometimes I start to value my own opinions to highly, and it is true that I probably need to keep some knowledge to myself, there is a need for Biblical literature on earth history, feathered dinosaurs, conservation, and other nature topics. I will be praying that my attitude on this site honours God. "Let God be true, and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4)!