Explanatory Notes for Chapter 1, from my book: "Satan, Devil, and Hell"
Explanatory Notes for Chapter 1
The Origin of Evil
PLEASE READ CHAPTER 1 ITSELF BEFORE READING THESE NOTES (i.e. "THE ORIGIN OF EVIL"); OR, AT LEAST "BEGIN" READING CHAPTER 1 BEFORE STARTING ON THESE. FOR, THESE ARE ITS NOTES.
*1. This picture, though, as was painted so lavishly by St. Augustine...
In at least two of his books, St. Augustine gives us extraordinary (though traditional) views on hell that has become standard to many doctrines; or, at least, have paved the way for a lot of modern beliefs on hell. These books are: The Enchiridion, and The City of God.
*2. There is no truth in him [was there ever truth in him?]...
This is a good question to ask at this point; yet, not the time to really answer. I first must build my case before boldly laying the chips down upon the table. However, this question is legit – in seeing that most folks will tell you of how perfect a creature he was at the very beginning of time; and, yet, we have Jesus here telling his audience that not only was he a liar and a murderer from the very beginning, but also that there is no – nor ever was – truth found in him ... If that's really the case, we then have to ask, in such circumstances as this, of how he could have been a perfect Being before evil was found in him? ... But, then, somebody could turn right around and say that he was a liar at the beginning of the evilness being found within him. But, according to scripture, and as we will continue to see, that's actually impossible ... Stay tuned!
*3. From the biblical text alone!...
As I had pointed out in pretty good detail in my already published book: "In the Beginning: it was spiritual from the very start" (and, as I will continue to point out, with even better detail in my upcoming book: "The Bible is not a Buffet"), all other source materials, other than the original writings of the Bible, should NOT be consulted unless they actually complement the original texts; and, even then, they should be carefully sifted through. In such considerations, we should actually see that other books, on or about the devil (or, even on any other doctrinal issues for that matter), are simply "ideas" and "doctrines" gained from the original scrolls of the Bible – including, even, this book that you are holding in your hands! Of which original sources were actually jotted down by holy men that were inspired by God's Spirit to write them down which we read today...
2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Therefore, we need not consult other sources for "better" ideas than those which were already placed upon paper (or, upon stone tablets – then, animal skins) by the original, Godly ordained authors. If, therefore, "other" works and writings complement the Bible, and flow smoothly with its words, then that's really good. But, if things seem contradictory (even if they are writings from as far back as biblical times; i.e., as far back as the Apocryphal books* – which books were written in-between Malachi and Matthew), then we are not obligated to listen to them ... Let's not be naive in believing that teachers can't make mistakes in their writings (I, myself included! – see: "An important message from the author" at the beginning of this book). However (and, again) as I explore these ideas in my two aforementioned books, I DO believe that our Bibles are accurate to God's Mind. Not necessarily, however, in translations of the original languages, but in the original languages themselves ... Yes, an accurate Bible CAN be found if (just as it had happened to the holy men of old) God's Spirit can inspire us to sift through a lot of messed-up versions to find the pure truth.
*Apocryphal books...
What has come to be known to us today as the Apocrypha are a set of books that were written several hundred years before Christ, and also several hundred years after Christ. These books fill the gap between Malachi (the last 'official' book of the Old Testament) and Matthew (the first 'official' book of the New Testament); and, then, continue once again after Revelation (the last 'official' book of the New Testament). There's controversy surrounding them, though, for the argument is whether these 'other' books should also be a part of the 'official' canon of the Bible or not; that is, what's considered authoritative to the Christian community abroad. And, certainly, opinions do vary. This is an argument, believe it or not, that's very relevant to our current study. For, if we say to another person that the belief they have does not correspond to scripture, they may just say that it does, and will be thinking of a book that you do not consider valid. The Roman Catholic Bible, for instance, has many of the Apocryphal books within its pages; but, believe it or not, so did the first printing of the King James Version – the most famous of Protestant Bibles. Later, because of "puritans" in England, the Apocrypha was finally thrown out of later editions of the KJV; and, therefore, remains out of it to this day for Protestant America. A lot of scholars have looked back into the issue, though, wondering why they were ever taken out of it to begin with; for, who's to decide which books we should keep or get rid of? Mere man? Hence, our problem; for, the Apocryphal books, in a lot of ways, support the doctrinal ideas of many organized Churches in this world, and are therefore useful for their leaders to "prove" what they teach. But, on the other hand, if these ancient books prove to be false (doctrinally on the basis of canon, that is), then so would modern, doctrinal teachings which base their ideas thereon ... As for me, personally, and in my humble opinion, I will say that these Apocryphal books do NOT express the pure truth of God** ... Am I sure? Is this just another "opinion" by mere man? ... Well, I will actually share the main reasons of my decision; and, they're certainly opinions that every person should seriously consider, too ... The first consideration, concerning the canon of the Old Testament, is in the form of both Jesus and His disciples, of when they were quoting Holy Scripture (in the Gospel accounts and in the letters of the New Testament), that even though leaving out only a handful of books of the Old Testament in their quotes (that is, from the Jewish and Protestant Christian's chosen, authoritative books), never, not even once, did any of them quote from what's considered the Apocrypha.*** So, if the Apocryphal books are really considered sacred and holy, then why didn't the founding leaders of Christianity quote from any of them? Or, why didn't the Hebrew Bible itself carry any of them? For, these extra books were certainly available during the Early Church days (i.e. the Septuagint had some – circa 3rd century; and, 200 to 50 BC. See: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha ); so, the Apocryphal books were certainly known about during the 1st century – as we'll also see in just a moment when I'll quote from Josephus, the famous 1st century historian ... Secondly (and, of which will be a similar case to the canon of the New Testament – as I'll also speak on in a few moments), what the Jews had (and, still do) consider sacred books are those that were written by, or dictated by, a chosen prophet of God ... We can see that this tradition was heavily on the minds of the 1st century Jews, as can be seen by the famous writer Flavius Josephus:
Against Apion, by Josephus, written before AD 100, Book 1, section 8a (public domain -
sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/apion-1.htm ): For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books,**** which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.
Again, and in a similar fashion were the books (or, letters) of the New Testament finally chosen; that is, because they were written by or were dictated by those of whom are considered the founding apostles of the Early Church – as quotes Dr. Bruce Metzger (an accredited biblical scholar, former professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, and former chairman of the New Revised Standard Version Bible Committee - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_M._Metzger ), in Lee Strobel's wonderful book 'The Case for Christ' (Zondervan Publishing, 1998), on page 86 in the paperback version ... So, in other words, the books of our Bibles (the 'original' books and letters, of both the Old and New Testaments) weren't just randomly stuck in there because of their antiquity, but were picked because of their compositions by, or dictations by the old, chosen prophets and apostles. Therefore, all other books were and still are only intrusions on the true, pure Word of God ... Certainly, much more can be said on this subject – and, certainly, I will speak more on it in my upcoming book, called "The Bible is not a Buffet." Also, I'm speaking a bit more about this in the following Sub-Notes:
**These Apocryphal books do NOT express the pure truth of God...
I don't know of any serious scholar that actually believes that the Apocryphal books are trash, or are ready to toss into the dumpster. In fact, they can be extremely useful for biblical studies and historical research, just as any other books out there (modern or historical) which actually complement the original texts. That's not the argument or real issue about and against the Apocrypha. The real issue is whether or not these books can be considered 'authoritative' scripture (i.e. canon), as to being the pure Breath of God – void of any man's flesh ... Whilst a lot of them do complement the authoritative texts in part, some also begin to wander seriously off the beaten path of pure truth. And, if that's really the case, then any serious Bible student should be able to tell you that just a little leaven will leaven an entire lump of bread (Matthew 16:12; 1st Corinthians 5:6-7); that is, if you can't trust any portion of a book, then you should be dubious of any of it, and only read through it very carefully ... Again, I'll explore these issues a bit better in my upcoming book on biblical authority.
***Never, not even once, did any of them quote from what's considered the Apocrypha…
And, yet, we do have this witness:
Jude 1:14-15
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Admittedly, this is a puzzle to many scholars; and, also admittedly, to myself! No person knows of where Jude got this information (certainly not from Genesis) – but, it’s not a foregone conclusion that it wasn’t a direct revelation from Christ to him. But, perhaps it’s more logical to conclude that he got it from some ancient book that’s completely unknown to us today. Ironically, a book did show up, much later, having the name of Enoch attached; and perhaps even more ironically, it did contain similar wording inside to what Jude says here. Naturally, many have concluded that that’s where Jude got his information – despite the fact that most of that book has outlandish writings in it which do not match up with scripture. Therefore, and because of that, many others have concluded that what was found was actually a later copy (after Jude wrote his words), and simply added in Jude’s words into it to make it appear authentic. Scholars are divided on this. However, such a find does not prove that Jude copied his ideas from that “Apocryphal” book … Despite what is known to us today as the Apocrypha, there certainly are “other” books mentioned by the Bible itself that have not come to light as of yet (i.e. no copy of them is known to exist in our modern times). Which again, these are NOT from the Apocrypha, but were written earlier than those external books – actually written during the Old Testament days themselves. These books are as follows:
– The book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2nd Samuel 1:18)
– The book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14)
– The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (1st Kings 14:19,29)
– The book of Shemaiah the Prophet and Visions of Iddo the Seer (2nd Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; and 13:22
– The Manner of the Kingdom (1st Samuel 10:25)
– The Acts of Solomon (1st Kings 11:41)
– The Annals of King David (1st Chronicles 27:24)
– The book of Samuel the Seer (1st Chronicles 29:29
– The book of Nathan the Prophet (1st Chronicles 29:29 and 2nd Chronicles 9:29)
– The book of Gad the Seer (1st Chronicles 29:29)
– The prophesy of Ahijah (2nd Chronicles 9:29)
– The books of the Kings of Judah and Israel (2nd Chornicles 16:11; 27:7; 32:32)
– Etc. (see, for more books, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-c... )
What this tells us is that there were other books that had the truth of God in them, but (and, also as some believe) they were unnecessary to add to the canon because many of them may actually be repeats of what was already in the actual books of the Bible; or, that God simply didn’t need them within the final collection because His children have enough in what’s considered today as the Old Testament to help them enter unto salvation. Be that as it may, these books remain a mystery for us today. As for my own thoughts, I see the original book of Enoch (if there ever was such a thing) as to being one of these lost books (and, not what has been brought to our attention in our modern times – that obscure version with Enoch’s name attached), and that what Jude had in his possession (or, of what he had read prior to his own letter being written) was one of those lost books that I just got through listing … Now, concerning me pointing out about Enoch’s name being attached to this Apocryphal book, we should know that it had become extremely popular, in the New Testament Apocryphal books (that is, those written after Revelation – and, indeed, even on some that were written after Malachi, before Jesus was born), to attach a famous name to the title page – which fact, also, was pointed out in Lee Strobel's book: 'The Case for Christ.' Such name placing gave those books “weight” to try and prove that what was written within was authentic – though they contradicted the actual scriptures quite often and terribly.
Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible (published in 1810-1826; public domain): Of the book of Enoch, from which this prophecy is thought to have been taken, much has been said; but as the work is apocryphal, and of no authority, I shall not burden my page with extracts.
The Biblical Illustrator, by Joseph S. Exell (Published in 1900; public domain): There is indeed an apocryphal book, “The Book of Enoch,” which appears to have been often used by the early Fathers, and to have acquired a great celebrity in the first days of Christianity. For centuries this book was supposed to have been lost, and our only knowledge of it was derived from quotations in other writings. An Ethiopic version was at length discovered in Ethiopia, and brought to England by the well-known traveller, Bruce. In this book there are passages which answer very nearly to the prophecy recorded by St. Jude. It has therefore been a common supposition that the apostle derived from this book the prediction which he ascribes to the patriarch. But the likelihood is that the Book of Enoch was written after the Epistle of St. Jude, so that Jude could not have drawn the prophecy from the book; but, rather, the writer of the book inserted in it the prophecy that he might give to his forgery the appearance of truth. We may believe, therefore, that in all probability Jude was informed of the prediction by immediate revelation. But whatever the source whence the apostle derived it, we may be certain that the prophecy was actually delivered by Enoch.
Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible: The source from which Jude derived this passage respecting the prophecy of Enoch is unknown. Amidst the multitude of traditions, however, handed down by the Jews from a remote antiquity, though many of them were false, and many of a trifling character, it is reasonable to presume that some of them were true and were of importance. No man can prove that the one before us is not of that character; no one can show that an inspired writer might not be led to make the selection of a true prophecy from a mass of traditions; and as the prophecy before us is one that would be every way worthy of a prophet, and worthy to be preserved, its quotation furnishes no argument against the inspiration of Jude. There is no clear evidence that he quoted it from any book extant in his time. There is, indeed, now an apocryphal writing called “the Book of Enoch,” containing a prediction strongly resembling this, but there is no certain proof that it existed so early as the time of Jude, nor, if it did, is it absolutely certain that he quoted from it. Both Jude and the author of that book may have quoted a common tradition of their time, for there can be no doubt that the passage referred to was handed down by tradition. The passage as found in “the Book of Enoch” is in these words: “Behold he comes with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal, for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done and committed against him,” chapter ii. Bib. Repository, vol. xv. p. 86. If the Book of Enoch was written after the time of Jude, it is natural to suppose that the prophecy referred to by him, and handed down by tradition, would be inserted in it. This book was discovered in an Ethiopic version, and was published with a translation by Dr. Laurence of Oxford, in 1821, and republished in 1832. A full account of it and its contents may be seen in an article by Prof. Stuart in the Bib. Repository for January 1840, pp. 86-137.
Matthew Henry’s Commentary of the whole Bible: Some say that this prophecy of Enoch was preserved by tradition in the Jewish church; others that the apostle Jude was immediately inspired with the notice of it: be this as it may, it is certain that there was such a prophecy of ancient date, of long standing, and universally received in the Old Testament church; and it is a main point of our New Testament creed.
****Twenty-two books...
This count does not correspond to the number of books counted by modern, religious Jews – which are 24 books.***** However, the books are really the very same books as of what's considered sacred today; Josephus just counted them differently. Without getting into a long spill about it here, there's an excellent website whose author already did some wonderful research for us on the subject, and I highly recommend it for those who are curious: www.askelm.com/restoring/res005.htm . But, basically, here's their suggestive arrangement for the ancient author's count:
THE LAW
1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy
THE PROPHETS
6. Joshua/Judges
7. The Book of Kingdoms
8. Isaiah
9. Jeremiah
10. Ezekiel
11. The Twelve
THE WRITINGS (PSALMS)
12. Psalms
13. Proverbs
14. Job
15. Song of Songs
16. Ruth
17. Lamentations
18. Ecclesiastes
19. Esther
20. Daniel
21. Ezra/Nehemiah
22. The Book of Chronicles
*****Which are 24 books...
As can be seen from the suggested list above (which counts for Josephus' 22 book count of the Old Testament books), some books are actually combined together; that is, in comparison to the Protestant Old Testament, which counts out 39 books itself. But, all books (whether Josephus' count, the modern Jewish Bible's count, or even the Christian, Protestant Old Testament) they are all the same, exact books accounted for. However, in the Protestant Bible, the reason for more books being counted are that some of them were split apart – such as 1st and 2nd Samuel; 1st and 2nd Chronicles; the 'Twelve,' or 'Book of the Twelve,' being split up into twelve separate books – which Protestants call the twelve minor Prophet books. Not that they were minor compared to the major Prophets (such as, not being as important), but were just smaller books in size ... Again, the reason Josephus' count was smaller than the modern Jewish Bible (and, indeed, even St. Jerome agreed with Josephus in a 22-book count) is explained fully in the website address I gave in the last Sub-Sub-Note; namely: www.askelm.com/restoring/res005.htm . All books are the same, even if given in different order or completions or breakings-apart.
*4. Did God really create all that?...
In order to quickly rescue us with the problem of God creating evil, such hypothesis as this have emerged:
Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible: And create evil - The parallelism here shows that this is not to be understood in the sense of all evil, but of that which is the opposite of peace and prosperity. That is, God directs judgments, disappointments, trials, and calamities; he has power to suffer the mad passions of people to rage, and to afflict nations with war; he presides over adverse as well as prosperous events. The passage does not prove that God is the author of moral evil, or sin, and such a sentiment is abhorrent to the general strain of the Bible, and to all just views of the character of a holy God.
And yet some will admit to this:
The Biblical Illustrator, by Joseph S. Exell: Soften it down as we will, it is a tremendous claim [of God creating evil], a claim which plunges our thoughts into impenetrable mysteries, and suggests problems we cannot solve ... And how can our hearts be at rest until we know and are sure that God rules over the kingdom of darkness as well as in the kingdom of light; that the evils which befall us are under His control no less than the blessings which enrich and gladden us; that wherever we wander, and through whatever sorrowful changes we pass, we are never for a single moment out of His hand?
As we progress along into our study, we will see if the idea of God creating evil really stops at the doorstep of mere calamity (as Albert Barnes suggests), or if the idea of the scriptures actually give further and deeper meanings – just as the Biblical Illustrator hastened to say: "Soften it down as we will, it is a tremendous claim, a claim which plunges our thoughts into impenetrable mysteries, and suggests problems we cannot solve." However, I do believe that the mystery CAN be solved, but with deeper and further research. And, to which may or may not include Albert Barnes ideas that "The passage [in Isaiah 45:7] does not prove that God is the author of moral evil, or sin, and such a sentiment is abhorrent to the general strain of the Bible, and to all just views of the character of a holy God."
*5. Inventors of evil things...
Being an "inventor" of something is not the same thing as being the "creator" of something; for, creation is the very beginning of a thing and not the "continuance" of something that was already created at the beginning of time. Let's take for instance Adam "begetting" Seth in the first part of Genesis chapter 5. We can't say, with accurateness, that Adam "created" Seth – because, even Eve admitted, when baring Cain earlier, that she had "gotten a man from the LORD" (Genesis 4:1). This was a continuing process of child bearing after God had initially created child bearing at the beginning. As we'll explore in this book, God set a process to the initial course of life (as in winding something up, then watching its "random" occurrences proceed afterwards; showing us, again, how He merely set the course, and designed us to be capable of inventing evil things on our own – without He ever having to think of a single evil thought for a wicked imagination that man would have thereafter.
Romans 1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in THEIR imaginations [not God’s imagination], and their foolish heart was darkened. [30a] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things…
Now, let’s continue our thoughts concerning Adam not creating Seth, but of he and Eve birthing Seth – continuing the process that God had initially created…
Genesis 5:3
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in HIS own likeness, after HIS image; and called his name Seth.
Compare this “continuance” of birthing (not an initial creation) with the two scriptures above this one to see how God started the whole thing off Himself, and with an actual “creation:”
Genesis 5:1b-2
…God created man [i.e. created mankind to begin with], in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam [i.e. man; mankind], in the day when they were created.
Again, when we compare this with verse 3, it does not say that Adam created Seth, but that he and Eve begat Seth; i.e. birthed him ... So, what’s the point to this exercise? I’m trying to show, once again, the difference between “acting upon” something that was already created with comparison to the initial creation of a thing; and, that nowhere in scripture can we find where anything or anyone outside of God has initial, creative power – the power to initially create something – including a literal Being called the devil not having such creative power; as, also, we’ll continue to see. If this is really true, then we have to ask ourselves where evil came from in the first place. And, if the devil did “create” evil, then where did he get that creative power?
*6. Did the devil just place it within the Mind of Man, or what?...
Again, I have to ask that if God didn’t create wicked evil, as many contend, then where did it come from in the first place? This reminds me very much about the problem with the Big Bang Theory* of Evolutionists (i.e. of Cosmic or Macro-Evolution**). It’s an elaborate theory about how the universe was formed, and is referenced as The Big Bang; for, it once was considered (and is still considered by many) that a micro, tiny piece of dirt (matter) had spun very fast, then exploded, and then expanded at a rapid rate to form the universe. Of course, that base theory has been updated by some. However, and whatever they may say had exploded, or just simply expanded, they cannot answer the question of where that tiny piece of dirt (matter) had even come from to begin with, which eventually exploded or expanded to make all that we see today … Similarly (as is the case for all the forwarded explanations of what all the “Big Bang” consisted of), folks can say all day long how that there is a devil, and of what all his activities are, but how can those folks explain where evil come from to begin with? Can it be proved that the devil is a creator, too? If so, where is it written in the biblical text? All I see, once again, is that God created evil. That statement is at least written therein, even if folks have other theories as to what that means … I’ve also heard it explained that evil is just like darkness, in that it wasn’t “created,” it’s just there, and has always been. That answer seems too simplistic to me, and an avoiding of the issue. The same author that I read that from also said that the Bible does NOT say that God created evil. How he missed Isaiah 45:7, along with its Hebrew definitions, I cannot say! But, then he went on to explain that just suddenly, and out of nowhere, people just decided to do bad things that was opposite and contrary to light and goodness. Again, that’s just too weak of an explanation for me. Darkness, light, good and evil are a part of God’s plans – just as much as other things that have parallels, such as cold, hot; happiness, sadness; etc. A lot of people, for years, have been enveloped in the definition that darkness isn’t really in existence, that it’s just an absence of light ( en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness ). The true answer, for many, though, is just as puzzling and limited as it is to answer where that pesky, little piece of dirt (matter) had initially come from that finally exploded or expanded to make our universe. We’re limited if we only believe in science only and not God; a God, that is, who actually created science (of which statement, by the way, is not insinuating that all who believe in science cannot believe in a Supreme Being. But, is a statement for those who don’t believe in God). However, if God is truly God, then His realm has to be outside the confines of science, and outside anything that has to obey the rules of physics and universal laws. Again, we limit ourselves to say that darkness is non-existent; or, that it (as a negative non-component nothingness, which is void of anything observable and demonstratable), has just always been, and that it was never “created.” How can we know that? Especially when we can’t even fathom the thought that God has always been, and had no beginning … Let’s take the air, for instance. We can’t see it, so how do we know that it’s a real thing? Well, we can feel it; we can see its effects when it whisks things away (the same is true, incidentally, for the Spirit of God!). But, darkness can certainly be observed, too. Don’t believe it? Then, turn off a light bulb and you’ll see it. How limiting are things, really, when we read this verse, which I’ve already quoted?
Colossians 1:16-17
For by him were ALL things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Darkness can at least be seen; and, yet, He even created things invisible, too. The absence of light, giving way to darkness, in that darkness isn’t a color or a substance of any sort, we must know is a theory that has been forwarded by man and is not an “established” fact. Therefore, to say with confidence that there are some things demonstratable and observable by visuals – that are actually subject for dismissal – is something that all scientists should bark about; for, if darkness weren’t a substance, as is said by many, then how do we know it’s even there to begin with? Again, it can be observable by simply turning off of a lightbulb ... The same is true for evil. For, if evil is not real (or, even to say that it just magically popped up somewhere unexpected one day), then why do we even try to fight it? Can evil, as the wind and air, be observable and demonstratable? It certainly can! Therefore, it’s a substance that’s as real as darkness, light, goodness, bad, hot and cold. So, it had to have a beginning sometime. And, if somebody can actually prove that the devil “created” evil (within the confines of the Word of God, and of an initial creation), then I take my hat off to them for being so clever, because I haven’t found any such scripture myself. For, we must remember, and as I had explained in an earlier Explanatory Note, that there’s a huge difference between “creating” something and in “continuing or expanding” in something that had already been initially created. The only answer that we can give with absolute confidence, and from the Word of God, is that God Himself had created evil. Again, we at least have a scripture that says so! But, not only – the same verse actually says that God created darkness, too; showing us that darkness, indeed, is a substance of creation:
Isaiah 45:7
I form [H3335] the light, and create [H1254] darkness [H2822]: I make peace, and create [H1254] evil [Ra: H7451]: I the LORD [not the devil!] do all these things.
Form, Yâtsar (yaw-tsar'), H3335, from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: Probably identical with H3334 (through the squeezing into shape); (compare H3331); to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively to determine (that is, form a resolution): - X earthen, fashion, form, frame, make (-r), potter, purpose.
Create, Bârâ' (baw-raw'), H1254, from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
Darkness, Chôshek (kho-shek'), H2822, from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.
What else can be said of this?
*Big Bang Theory…
For the record, I just want to say that I do not believe in the Big Bang Theory – as if that’s a surprise for my readers! And, just because I don’t believe it the way many Evolutionistic teachers and professors explain it, it doesn’t make me a religious fanatic, either. What a lot of folks don’t know or consider these days is that a science theory is just that – a theory! However, and despite this, modern science now concludes that when a theory is a science theory, it’s not a mere theory anymore, it’s now a fact. So, with that, we have to update our dictionary meanings to also mean fact when we look up the word theory. If that’s not so, then anybody should be able to forward a theory without being shot-down by the scientific community – such as, the Christian Creation Scientists. But, saying that a theory is an established, unquestionable fact is all bologna, anyway. Why? Because, with each advancing year, the Evolutionists’ “factual-theories” advance and get updated themselves. So, if it does get updated (i.e. changed), then how was it ever a fact to begin with? … Science is really based on learning and updating when new and better data comes in.
Wikipedia – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang : Significant progress in Big Bang cosmology has been made since the late 1990s as a result of advances in telescope technology as well as the analysis of data from satellites such as the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE),[71] the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP.
Well, I say that is fine – but, again, how does that justify past factual-theories as to being actual facts? This is how some Evolutionist Scientists gain the upper-hand in the Evolution versus Creation debate by saying that Creationists are not real scientists, but are, instead, religiously unscientific minded folks – or, are simply religious fanatics – and, that their science theories are just that: unproven theories (a term – theory – which can only be factual for “real” scientists); and, which theories (that, in many cases, are based upon the biblical text), and, in many of their opinions, simply cannot be proven factual in the consideration of earth and steller sciences … However, and despite these sort of thoughts, all endeavors of science (it must be understood) should really be equally looked upon and considered – whether it’s embracing Evolution in its entirety, or toward a strict Christian Creationist model – and, even for those who fall in-between those categories somewhere – especially given equal times of intelligent consideration for the sakes of students – who deserve a well-balanced education; for, the best observations should be considered and kept, even if it irks many preconceived ideas and biases ... On the Wikipedia webpage, that I gave the address for a moment ago, and when considering the question of what had exploded (or, they’re now saying “expanded”), they have absolutely no answers to give:
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation, since astronomical data about them are not available…
Then, further on, they admit that The Big Bang Theory cannot answer all questions about the beginnings of life:
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space was caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.
So, how can it be truly said that it’s impossible for God to have created energy, time, space, matter, and the universal laws? Many avoid such a thought, and with much passion, too! … I’m also well aware that many people see a “harmony” between “science and religion,” saying that God possibly was the one who had “created” the Big Bang. Without getting into that subject here, for I’ve already went over former college professor Phillip E. Johnson’s wonderful words (from his book 'Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds,' [1997 InterVarsity Press]) in my book “In the Beginning: It was spiritual from the very start,” in saying that there really “isn’t” harmony between Evolutionistic science and – not religion! – but, Creation Science. Please either consult his book for this discussion (which had been well written and thought-out), or my former book on the matter … Big Bang theorists have much to say on their subject, but they cannot explain the very beginnings of the universe, or of how matter came to be. But, if they never consider a Creator to have had a hand in it somewhere, somehow, then they’ll never know; for, first of all, they cannot see or understand the things that are “outside” the realms of science – which is the true origin of natural matter. That is, God created all things!
Romans 1:20a
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made…
Colossians 1:15b
…the invisible God…
1 Timothy 1:17b
…the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God…
So, if Evolutional science cannot explain the origins of their own theories (for, they have no true model to begin from), then how can we even believe that they have “dates” as to when all this happened? Which “dates,” by the way, extends to billions and billions of years ago.
Wikipedia – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang : The known laws of physics can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme density and temperature. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang at around 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.
Do you not know that anything could have happened in that length of time? Do you realize how long ago that really was? In a YouTube video by credentialed scientist Eric J. Lerner (who, in 1991, wrote the book: “The Big Bang Never Happened”), you can see just how much this man damages the theory, for many things have to be ignored to even believe in it:
“The Real Crisis in Cosmology - The Big Bang Never Happened:” www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KkhRibBllU …
Also, there are many pages online which refute the theory, as well – and, not all participants can be proved to be religious fanatics … Too, one of the worst things that Wikipedia adds to this topic, and I’ve heard this before, is:
…it [The Big Bang Theory] has become one of the liveliest areas in the discourse between science and religion…
Do you see what this is insinuating? Anybody that does not believe the real experts in science are only religious fanatics who scoff at science and are still living in the dark ages. No, this is not a matter of science vs religion, this is a matter of science vs science – and, especially, when it comes to the shaky Big Bang Theory.
**Cosmic or Macro-Evolution…
– Of which, The Big Bang Theory is certainly a part of … Actually, and according to creationtoday.org/six-meanings-of-evo... , there are really six meanings to the one word Evolution: 1) Cosmic Evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the Big Bang; 2) Chemical Evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen; 3) Stellar Evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds; 4) Organic Evolution: life begins from inanimate matter; 5) Macro-Evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another; and 6) Micro-Evolution: variations form within the “kind.” Only the last one, Micro-Evolution, has anything to do with real science … When discussing or considering Evolution, you have to take into consideration (and, you'll do yourself a favor by doing so!) that there is a huge difference between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution (I speak on Macro and Micro Evolution here because it’s the most popular topic that’s discussed on the general subject of Evolution; for, again, Macro says that one kind of an animal can change into a completely, incompatible and different kind of animal) … If you simply say to those who hold such beliefs that there is no Evolution, they'll think you a moron and an uneducated oaf; for, it's now turned into a words-game! So, what's the difference? Micro-Evolution tells us that there are "changes" in and on the earth over time; which, is actually true (as I'll explain further in a moment). But, Macro-Evolution says that there are changes within "species" themselves. Such as a human had "evolved" from a type of a long-ago extinct ape, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years ago. That's where proof is actually lacking. But, Evolutionist educators try to have you buy into Macro-Evolution because they can actually prove Micro-Evolution. It's the 'ol bait-and-switch game! But, even so, what's Micro-Evolution boil down to? Well, you can have changes within a "species." Such as, you can get a little dog from a bigger dog. You can get a variety of different kinds of dogs from other kinds of dogs. You might even get a wolf from a dog. But, that's just it – they're still changes within the same "kind" of animal. And, that kind of science can actually be observable, demonstrated, and provable – which is what we call "empirical science," or "empirical evidence;" which Wikipedia says "is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation." But, what's not observable, nor empirical, is that you can get one kind of an animal from a completely different kind. That's where we start having problems with Evolution. For example, you'll never be able to get a deer to mate with a jackrabbit and get a Jackalope. It just simply doesn't happen, folks. And, yet, we're all supposed to buy into it because Micro-Evolution can be observed ... Hum! ... By the way, I purposely "put into quotations" both the words "species" and "kind" because I do not believe there to be such a thing as a species (that is, as the term is so forwarded by Evolutional Scientists – which wording is adopted by them to examine Macro-Evolution***); but, I do believe in kinds, as is so expressed by the Bible.
Genesis 1:21-25
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And, yet, it never said that a different "kind" would come from another different kind. And, again, it cannot be proved by any scientific observations; nor can it ever be empirical science. But, all the year long we can watch a variety (micro-evolution) of animals breed with each other, who are of the same kind as they ... But, what exactly is a kind, one may ask? Well, it's simpler to answer than of what a species is – that's for sure! There are dog kinds; there's horse kinds; cat kinds; elephant kinds; etc. In other words, animals who can successfully breed with one another are the same kind ... For more information on this controversial debate, please go to: creationscience.com/onlinebook , the official website of Dr. Walt Brown. But, especially beginning on this page: creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSc... , which deals exclusively with Micro and Macro Evolution, and of their differences.
***Which wording is adopted by them to examine Macro-Evolution...
No, Evolutionists did not invent the word "species," but they certainly adopted it instead of the word "kind." However, and ironically, the original use of the word, and the original meaning, actually did mean "kind."
etymonline.com/word/species : Late 14c. as a classification in logic, from Latin species "a particular sort, kind, or type" (opposed to genus [which word some scientists may use instead of species, since it may get more specific for them in their minds]), originally "a sight, look, view, appearance," hence also "a spectacle; mental appearance, idea, notion; a look; a pretext; a resemblance; a show or display," typically in passive senses; in Late Latin, "a special case;" related to specere "to look at, to see, behold," from PIE root spek- "to observe." From 1550s as "appearance, outward form;" 1560s as "distinct class (of something) based on common characteristics." [i.e. not different kinds] Biological sense is from c. 1600. Endangered species first attested 1964.
Be that as it may, I guess different folks will observe this word – as they do science – with their own goggles. But, is that wrong to do? That is, to see things how you would like to see them? And, that is, whether it's right or wrong? Nay, friends, it's not wrong. But, what is wrong is in forcing others to believe them with you ... You'll find the guilty parties in all facets of life: in business, in science, in entertainment, in education, etc; and, even – God forbid – in religion!
*7. Like pottery on a potter's wheel...
Isaiah 29:16
Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
Isaiah 64:8
But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
Romans 9:20-21
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
END OF EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR CHAPTER 1 "THE ORIGIN OF EVIL"
The Origin of Evil
PLEASE READ CHAPTER 1 ITSELF BEFORE READING THESE NOTES (i.e. "THE ORIGIN OF EVIL"); OR, AT LEAST "BEGIN" READING CHAPTER 1 BEFORE STARTING ON THESE. FOR, THESE ARE ITS NOTES.
*1. This picture, though, as was painted so lavishly by St. Augustine...
In at least two of his books, St. Augustine gives us extraordinary (though traditional) views on hell that has become standard to many doctrines; or, at least, have paved the way for a lot of modern beliefs on hell. These books are: The Enchiridion, and The City of God.
*2. There is no truth in him [was there ever truth in him?]...
This is a good question to ask at this point; yet, not the time to really answer. I first must build my case before boldly laying the chips down upon the table. However, this question is legit – in seeing that most folks will tell you of how perfect a creature he was at the very beginning of time; and, yet, we have Jesus here telling his audience that not only was he a liar and a murderer from the very beginning, but also that there is no – nor ever was – truth found in him ... If that's really the case, we then have to ask, in such circumstances as this, of how he could have been a perfect Being before evil was found in him? ... But, then, somebody could turn right around and say that he was a liar at the beginning of the evilness being found within him. But, according to scripture, and as we will continue to see, that's actually impossible ... Stay tuned!
*3. From the biblical text alone!...
As I had pointed out in pretty good detail in my already published book: "In the Beginning: it was spiritual from the very start" (and, as I will continue to point out, with even better detail in my upcoming book: "The Bible is not a Buffet"), all other source materials, other than the original writings of the Bible, should NOT be consulted unless they actually complement the original texts; and, even then, they should be carefully sifted through. In such considerations, we should actually see that other books, on or about the devil (or, even on any other doctrinal issues for that matter), are simply "ideas" and "doctrines" gained from the original scrolls of the Bible – including, even, this book that you are holding in your hands! Of which original sources were actually jotted down by holy men that were inspired by God's Spirit to write them down which we read today...
2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Therefore, we need not consult other sources for "better" ideas than those which were already placed upon paper (or, upon stone tablets – then, animal skins) by the original, Godly ordained authors. If, therefore, "other" works and writings complement the Bible, and flow smoothly with its words, then that's really good. But, if things seem contradictory (even if they are writings from as far back as biblical times; i.e., as far back as the Apocryphal books* – which books were written in-between Malachi and Matthew), then we are not obligated to listen to them ... Let's not be naive in believing that teachers can't make mistakes in their writings (I, myself included! – see: "An important message from the author" at the beginning of this book). However (and, again) as I explore these ideas in my two aforementioned books, I DO believe that our Bibles are accurate to God's Mind. Not necessarily, however, in translations of the original languages, but in the original languages themselves ... Yes, an accurate Bible CAN be found if (just as it had happened to the holy men of old) God's Spirit can inspire us to sift through a lot of messed-up versions to find the pure truth.
*Apocryphal books...
What has come to be known to us today as the Apocrypha are a set of books that were written several hundred years before Christ, and also several hundred years after Christ. These books fill the gap between Malachi (the last 'official' book of the Old Testament) and Matthew (the first 'official' book of the New Testament); and, then, continue once again after Revelation (the last 'official' book of the New Testament). There's controversy surrounding them, though, for the argument is whether these 'other' books should also be a part of the 'official' canon of the Bible or not; that is, what's considered authoritative to the Christian community abroad. And, certainly, opinions do vary. This is an argument, believe it or not, that's very relevant to our current study. For, if we say to another person that the belief they have does not correspond to scripture, they may just say that it does, and will be thinking of a book that you do not consider valid. The Roman Catholic Bible, for instance, has many of the Apocryphal books within its pages; but, believe it or not, so did the first printing of the King James Version – the most famous of Protestant Bibles. Later, because of "puritans" in England, the Apocrypha was finally thrown out of later editions of the KJV; and, therefore, remains out of it to this day for Protestant America. A lot of scholars have looked back into the issue, though, wondering why they were ever taken out of it to begin with; for, who's to decide which books we should keep or get rid of? Mere man? Hence, our problem; for, the Apocryphal books, in a lot of ways, support the doctrinal ideas of many organized Churches in this world, and are therefore useful for their leaders to "prove" what they teach. But, on the other hand, if these ancient books prove to be false (doctrinally on the basis of canon, that is), then so would modern, doctrinal teachings which base their ideas thereon ... As for me, personally, and in my humble opinion, I will say that these Apocryphal books do NOT express the pure truth of God** ... Am I sure? Is this just another "opinion" by mere man? ... Well, I will actually share the main reasons of my decision; and, they're certainly opinions that every person should seriously consider, too ... The first consideration, concerning the canon of the Old Testament, is in the form of both Jesus and His disciples, of when they were quoting Holy Scripture (in the Gospel accounts and in the letters of the New Testament), that even though leaving out only a handful of books of the Old Testament in their quotes (that is, from the Jewish and Protestant Christian's chosen, authoritative books), never, not even once, did any of them quote from what's considered the Apocrypha.*** So, if the Apocryphal books are really considered sacred and holy, then why didn't the founding leaders of Christianity quote from any of them? Or, why didn't the Hebrew Bible itself carry any of them? For, these extra books were certainly available during the Early Church days (i.e. the Septuagint had some – circa 3rd century; and, 200 to 50 BC. See: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha ); so, the Apocryphal books were certainly known about during the 1st century – as we'll also see in just a moment when I'll quote from Josephus, the famous 1st century historian ... Secondly (and, of which will be a similar case to the canon of the New Testament – as I'll also speak on in a few moments), what the Jews had (and, still do) consider sacred books are those that were written by, or dictated by, a chosen prophet of God ... We can see that this tradition was heavily on the minds of the 1st century Jews, as can be seen by the famous writer Flavius Josephus:
Against Apion, by Josephus, written before AD 100, Book 1, section 8a (public domain -
sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/apion-1.htm ): For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books,**** which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.
Again, and in a similar fashion were the books (or, letters) of the New Testament finally chosen; that is, because they were written by or were dictated by those of whom are considered the founding apostles of the Early Church – as quotes Dr. Bruce Metzger (an accredited biblical scholar, former professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, and former chairman of the New Revised Standard Version Bible Committee - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_M._Metzger ), in Lee Strobel's wonderful book 'The Case for Christ' (Zondervan Publishing, 1998), on page 86 in the paperback version ... So, in other words, the books of our Bibles (the 'original' books and letters, of both the Old and New Testaments) weren't just randomly stuck in there because of their antiquity, but were picked because of their compositions by, or dictations by the old, chosen prophets and apostles. Therefore, all other books were and still are only intrusions on the true, pure Word of God ... Certainly, much more can be said on this subject – and, certainly, I will speak more on it in my upcoming book, called "The Bible is not a Buffet." Also, I'm speaking a bit more about this in the following Sub-Notes:
**These Apocryphal books do NOT express the pure truth of God...
I don't know of any serious scholar that actually believes that the Apocryphal books are trash, or are ready to toss into the dumpster. In fact, they can be extremely useful for biblical studies and historical research, just as any other books out there (modern or historical) which actually complement the original texts. That's not the argument or real issue about and against the Apocrypha. The real issue is whether or not these books can be considered 'authoritative' scripture (i.e. canon), as to being the pure Breath of God – void of any man's flesh ... Whilst a lot of them do complement the authoritative texts in part, some also begin to wander seriously off the beaten path of pure truth. And, if that's really the case, then any serious Bible student should be able to tell you that just a little leaven will leaven an entire lump of bread (Matthew 16:12; 1st Corinthians 5:6-7); that is, if you can't trust any portion of a book, then you should be dubious of any of it, and only read through it very carefully ... Again, I'll explore these issues a bit better in my upcoming book on biblical authority.
***Never, not even once, did any of them quote from what's considered the Apocrypha…
And, yet, we do have this witness:
Jude 1:14-15
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Admittedly, this is a puzzle to many scholars; and, also admittedly, to myself! No person knows of where Jude got this information (certainly not from Genesis) – but, it’s not a foregone conclusion that it wasn’t a direct revelation from Christ to him. But, perhaps it’s more logical to conclude that he got it from some ancient book that’s completely unknown to us today. Ironically, a book did show up, much later, having the name of Enoch attached; and perhaps even more ironically, it did contain similar wording inside to what Jude says here. Naturally, many have concluded that that’s where Jude got his information – despite the fact that most of that book has outlandish writings in it which do not match up with scripture. Therefore, and because of that, many others have concluded that what was found was actually a later copy (after Jude wrote his words), and simply added in Jude’s words into it to make it appear authentic. Scholars are divided on this. However, such a find does not prove that Jude copied his ideas from that “Apocryphal” book … Despite what is known to us today as the Apocrypha, there certainly are “other” books mentioned by the Bible itself that have not come to light as of yet (i.e. no copy of them is known to exist in our modern times). Which again, these are NOT from the Apocrypha, but were written earlier than those external books – actually written during the Old Testament days themselves. These books are as follows:
– The book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2nd Samuel 1:18)
– The book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14)
– The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (1st Kings 14:19,29)
– The book of Shemaiah the Prophet and Visions of Iddo the Seer (2nd Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; and 13:22
– The Manner of the Kingdom (1st Samuel 10:25)
– The Acts of Solomon (1st Kings 11:41)
– The Annals of King David (1st Chronicles 27:24)
– The book of Samuel the Seer (1st Chronicles 29:29
– The book of Nathan the Prophet (1st Chronicles 29:29 and 2nd Chronicles 9:29)
– The book of Gad the Seer (1st Chronicles 29:29)
– The prophesy of Ahijah (2nd Chronicles 9:29)
– The books of the Kings of Judah and Israel (2nd Chornicles 16:11; 27:7; 32:32)
– Etc. (see, for more books, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-c... )
What this tells us is that there were other books that had the truth of God in them, but (and, also as some believe) they were unnecessary to add to the canon because many of them may actually be repeats of what was already in the actual books of the Bible; or, that God simply didn’t need them within the final collection because His children have enough in what’s considered today as the Old Testament to help them enter unto salvation. Be that as it may, these books remain a mystery for us today. As for my own thoughts, I see the original book of Enoch (if there ever was such a thing) as to being one of these lost books (and, not what has been brought to our attention in our modern times – that obscure version with Enoch’s name attached), and that what Jude had in his possession (or, of what he had read prior to his own letter being written) was one of those lost books that I just got through listing … Now, concerning me pointing out about Enoch’s name being attached to this Apocryphal book, we should know that it had become extremely popular, in the New Testament Apocryphal books (that is, those written after Revelation – and, indeed, even on some that were written after Malachi, before Jesus was born), to attach a famous name to the title page – which fact, also, was pointed out in Lee Strobel's book: 'The Case for Christ.' Such name placing gave those books “weight” to try and prove that what was written within was authentic – though they contradicted the actual scriptures quite often and terribly.
Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible (published in 1810-1826; public domain): Of the book of Enoch, from which this prophecy is thought to have been taken, much has been said; but as the work is apocryphal, and of no authority, I shall not burden my page with extracts.
The Biblical Illustrator, by Joseph S. Exell (Published in 1900; public domain): There is indeed an apocryphal book, “The Book of Enoch,” which appears to have been often used by the early Fathers, and to have acquired a great celebrity in the first days of Christianity. For centuries this book was supposed to have been lost, and our only knowledge of it was derived from quotations in other writings. An Ethiopic version was at length discovered in Ethiopia, and brought to England by the well-known traveller, Bruce. In this book there are passages which answer very nearly to the prophecy recorded by St. Jude. It has therefore been a common supposition that the apostle derived from this book the prediction which he ascribes to the patriarch. But the likelihood is that the Book of Enoch was written after the Epistle of St. Jude, so that Jude could not have drawn the prophecy from the book; but, rather, the writer of the book inserted in it the prophecy that he might give to his forgery the appearance of truth. We may believe, therefore, that in all probability Jude was informed of the prediction by immediate revelation. But whatever the source whence the apostle derived it, we may be certain that the prophecy was actually delivered by Enoch.
Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible: The source from which Jude derived this passage respecting the prophecy of Enoch is unknown. Amidst the multitude of traditions, however, handed down by the Jews from a remote antiquity, though many of them were false, and many of a trifling character, it is reasonable to presume that some of them were true and were of importance. No man can prove that the one before us is not of that character; no one can show that an inspired writer might not be led to make the selection of a true prophecy from a mass of traditions; and as the prophecy before us is one that would be every way worthy of a prophet, and worthy to be preserved, its quotation furnishes no argument against the inspiration of Jude. There is no clear evidence that he quoted it from any book extant in his time. There is, indeed, now an apocryphal writing called “the Book of Enoch,” containing a prediction strongly resembling this, but there is no certain proof that it existed so early as the time of Jude, nor, if it did, is it absolutely certain that he quoted from it. Both Jude and the author of that book may have quoted a common tradition of their time, for there can be no doubt that the passage referred to was handed down by tradition. The passage as found in “the Book of Enoch” is in these words: “Behold he comes with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal, for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done and committed against him,” chapter ii. Bib. Repository, vol. xv. p. 86. If the Book of Enoch was written after the time of Jude, it is natural to suppose that the prophecy referred to by him, and handed down by tradition, would be inserted in it. This book was discovered in an Ethiopic version, and was published with a translation by Dr. Laurence of Oxford, in 1821, and republished in 1832. A full account of it and its contents may be seen in an article by Prof. Stuart in the Bib. Repository for January 1840, pp. 86-137.
Matthew Henry’s Commentary of the whole Bible: Some say that this prophecy of Enoch was preserved by tradition in the Jewish church; others that the apostle Jude was immediately inspired with the notice of it: be this as it may, it is certain that there was such a prophecy of ancient date, of long standing, and universally received in the Old Testament church; and it is a main point of our New Testament creed.
****Twenty-two books...
This count does not correspond to the number of books counted by modern, religious Jews – which are 24 books.***** However, the books are really the very same books as of what's considered sacred today; Josephus just counted them differently. Without getting into a long spill about it here, there's an excellent website whose author already did some wonderful research for us on the subject, and I highly recommend it for those who are curious: www.askelm.com/restoring/res005.htm . But, basically, here's their suggestive arrangement for the ancient author's count:
THE LAW
1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy
THE PROPHETS
6. Joshua/Judges
7. The Book of Kingdoms
8. Isaiah
9. Jeremiah
10. Ezekiel
11. The Twelve
THE WRITINGS (PSALMS)
12. Psalms
13. Proverbs
14. Job
15. Song of Songs
16. Ruth
17. Lamentations
18. Ecclesiastes
19. Esther
20. Daniel
21. Ezra/Nehemiah
22. The Book of Chronicles
*****Which are 24 books...
As can be seen from the suggested list above (which counts for Josephus' 22 book count of the Old Testament books), some books are actually combined together; that is, in comparison to the Protestant Old Testament, which counts out 39 books itself. But, all books (whether Josephus' count, the modern Jewish Bible's count, or even the Christian, Protestant Old Testament) they are all the same, exact books accounted for. However, in the Protestant Bible, the reason for more books being counted are that some of them were split apart – such as 1st and 2nd Samuel; 1st and 2nd Chronicles; the 'Twelve,' or 'Book of the Twelve,' being split up into twelve separate books – which Protestants call the twelve minor Prophet books. Not that they were minor compared to the major Prophets (such as, not being as important), but were just smaller books in size ... Again, the reason Josephus' count was smaller than the modern Jewish Bible (and, indeed, even St. Jerome agreed with Josephus in a 22-book count) is explained fully in the website address I gave in the last Sub-Sub-Note; namely: www.askelm.com/restoring/res005.htm . All books are the same, even if given in different order or completions or breakings-apart.
*4. Did God really create all that?...
In order to quickly rescue us with the problem of God creating evil, such hypothesis as this have emerged:
Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible: And create evil - The parallelism here shows that this is not to be understood in the sense of all evil, but of that which is the opposite of peace and prosperity. That is, God directs judgments, disappointments, trials, and calamities; he has power to suffer the mad passions of people to rage, and to afflict nations with war; he presides over adverse as well as prosperous events. The passage does not prove that God is the author of moral evil, or sin, and such a sentiment is abhorrent to the general strain of the Bible, and to all just views of the character of a holy God.
And yet some will admit to this:
The Biblical Illustrator, by Joseph S. Exell: Soften it down as we will, it is a tremendous claim [of God creating evil], a claim which plunges our thoughts into impenetrable mysteries, and suggests problems we cannot solve ... And how can our hearts be at rest until we know and are sure that God rules over the kingdom of darkness as well as in the kingdom of light; that the evils which befall us are under His control no less than the blessings which enrich and gladden us; that wherever we wander, and through whatever sorrowful changes we pass, we are never for a single moment out of His hand?
As we progress along into our study, we will see if the idea of God creating evil really stops at the doorstep of mere calamity (as Albert Barnes suggests), or if the idea of the scriptures actually give further and deeper meanings – just as the Biblical Illustrator hastened to say: "Soften it down as we will, it is a tremendous claim, a claim which plunges our thoughts into impenetrable mysteries, and suggests problems we cannot solve." However, I do believe that the mystery CAN be solved, but with deeper and further research. And, to which may or may not include Albert Barnes ideas that "The passage [in Isaiah 45:7] does not prove that God is the author of moral evil, or sin, and such a sentiment is abhorrent to the general strain of the Bible, and to all just views of the character of a holy God."
*5. Inventors of evil things...
Being an "inventor" of something is not the same thing as being the "creator" of something; for, creation is the very beginning of a thing and not the "continuance" of something that was already created at the beginning of time. Let's take for instance Adam "begetting" Seth in the first part of Genesis chapter 5. We can't say, with accurateness, that Adam "created" Seth – because, even Eve admitted, when baring Cain earlier, that she had "gotten a man from the LORD" (Genesis 4:1). This was a continuing process of child bearing after God had initially created child bearing at the beginning. As we'll explore in this book, God set a process to the initial course of life (as in winding something up, then watching its "random" occurrences proceed afterwards; showing us, again, how He merely set the course, and designed us to be capable of inventing evil things on our own – without He ever having to think of a single evil thought for a wicked imagination that man would have thereafter.
Romans 1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in THEIR imaginations [not God’s imagination], and their foolish heart was darkened. [30a] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things…
Now, let’s continue our thoughts concerning Adam not creating Seth, but of he and Eve birthing Seth – continuing the process that God had initially created…
Genesis 5:3
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in HIS own likeness, after HIS image; and called his name Seth.
Compare this “continuance” of birthing (not an initial creation) with the two scriptures above this one to see how God started the whole thing off Himself, and with an actual “creation:”
Genesis 5:1b-2
…God created man [i.e. created mankind to begin with], in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam [i.e. man; mankind], in the day when they were created.
Again, when we compare this with verse 3, it does not say that Adam created Seth, but that he and Eve begat Seth; i.e. birthed him ... So, what’s the point to this exercise? I’m trying to show, once again, the difference between “acting upon” something that was already created with comparison to the initial creation of a thing; and, that nowhere in scripture can we find where anything or anyone outside of God has initial, creative power – the power to initially create something – including a literal Being called the devil not having such creative power; as, also, we’ll continue to see. If this is really true, then we have to ask ourselves where evil came from in the first place. And, if the devil did “create” evil, then where did he get that creative power?
*6. Did the devil just place it within the Mind of Man, or what?...
Again, I have to ask that if God didn’t create wicked evil, as many contend, then where did it come from in the first place? This reminds me very much about the problem with the Big Bang Theory* of Evolutionists (i.e. of Cosmic or Macro-Evolution**). It’s an elaborate theory about how the universe was formed, and is referenced as The Big Bang; for, it once was considered (and is still considered by many) that a micro, tiny piece of dirt (matter) had spun very fast, then exploded, and then expanded at a rapid rate to form the universe. Of course, that base theory has been updated by some. However, and whatever they may say had exploded, or just simply expanded, they cannot answer the question of where that tiny piece of dirt (matter) had even come from to begin with, which eventually exploded or expanded to make all that we see today … Similarly (as is the case for all the forwarded explanations of what all the “Big Bang” consisted of), folks can say all day long how that there is a devil, and of what all his activities are, but how can those folks explain where evil come from to begin with? Can it be proved that the devil is a creator, too? If so, where is it written in the biblical text? All I see, once again, is that God created evil. That statement is at least written therein, even if folks have other theories as to what that means … I’ve also heard it explained that evil is just like darkness, in that it wasn’t “created,” it’s just there, and has always been. That answer seems too simplistic to me, and an avoiding of the issue. The same author that I read that from also said that the Bible does NOT say that God created evil. How he missed Isaiah 45:7, along with its Hebrew definitions, I cannot say! But, then he went on to explain that just suddenly, and out of nowhere, people just decided to do bad things that was opposite and contrary to light and goodness. Again, that’s just too weak of an explanation for me. Darkness, light, good and evil are a part of God’s plans – just as much as other things that have parallels, such as cold, hot; happiness, sadness; etc. A lot of people, for years, have been enveloped in the definition that darkness isn’t really in existence, that it’s just an absence of light ( en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness ). The true answer, for many, though, is just as puzzling and limited as it is to answer where that pesky, little piece of dirt (matter) had initially come from that finally exploded or expanded to make our universe. We’re limited if we only believe in science only and not God; a God, that is, who actually created science (of which statement, by the way, is not insinuating that all who believe in science cannot believe in a Supreme Being. But, is a statement for those who don’t believe in God). However, if God is truly God, then His realm has to be outside the confines of science, and outside anything that has to obey the rules of physics and universal laws. Again, we limit ourselves to say that darkness is non-existent; or, that it (as a negative non-component nothingness, which is void of anything observable and demonstratable), has just always been, and that it was never “created.” How can we know that? Especially when we can’t even fathom the thought that God has always been, and had no beginning … Let’s take the air, for instance. We can’t see it, so how do we know that it’s a real thing? Well, we can feel it; we can see its effects when it whisks things away (the same is true, incidentally, for the Spirit of God!). But, darkness can certainly be observed, too. Don’t believe it? Then, turn off a light bulb and you’ll see it. How limiting are things, really, when we read this verse, which I’ve already quoted?
Colossians 1:16-17
For by him were ALL things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Darkness can at least be seen; and, yet, He even created things invisible, too. The absence of light, giving way to darkness, in that darkness isn’t a color or a substance of any sort, we must know is a theory that has been forwarded by man and is not an “established” fact. Therefore, to say with confidence that there are some things demonstratable and observable by visuals – that are actually subject for dismissal – is something that all scientists should bark about; for, if darkness weren’t a substance, as is said by many, then how do we know it’s even there to begin with? Again, it can be observable by simply turning off of a lightbulb ... The same is true for evil. For, if evil is not real (or, even to say that it just magically popped up somewhere unexpected one day), then why do we even try to fight it? Can evil, as the wind and air, be observable and demonstratable? It certainly can! Therefore, it’s a substance that’s as real as darkness, light, goodness, bad, hot and cold. So, it had to have a beginning sometime. And, if somebody can actually prove that the devil “created” evil (within the confines of the Word of God, and of an initial creation), then I take my hat off to them for being so clever, because I haven’t found any such scripture myself. For, we must remember, and as I had explained in an earlier Explanatory Note, that there’s a huge difference between “creating” something and in “continuing or expanding” in something that had already been initially created. The only answer that we can give with absolute confidence, and from the Word of God, is that God Himself had created evil. Again, we at least have a scripture that says so! But, not only – the same verse actually says that God created darkness, too; showing us that darkness, indeed, is a substance of creation:
Isaiah 45:7
I form [H3335] the light, and create [H1254] darkness [H2822]: I make peace, and create [H1254] evil [Ra: H7451]: I the LORD [not the devil!] do all these things.
Form, Yâtsar (yaw-tsar'), H3335, from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: Probably identical with H3334 (through the squeezing into shape); (compare H3331); to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively to determine (that is, form a resolution): - X earthen, fashion, form, frame, make (-r), potter, purpose.
Create, Bârâ' (baw-raw'), H1254, from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
Darkness, Chôshek (kho-shek'), H2822, from Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.
What else can be said of this?
*Big Bang Theory…
For the record, I just want to say that I do not believe in the Big Bang Theory – as if that’s a surprise for my readers! And, just because I don’t believe it the way many Evolutionistic teachers and professors explain it, it doesn’t make me a religious fanatic, either. What a lot of folks don’t know or consider these days is that a science theory is just that – a theory! However, and despite this, modern science now concludes that when a theory is a science theory, it’s not a mere theory anymore, it’s now a fact. So, with that, we have to update our dictionary meanings to also mean fact when we look up the word theory. If that’s not so, then anybody should be able to forward a theory without being shot-down by the scientific community – such as, the Christian Creation Scientists. But, saying that a theory is an established, unquestionable fact is all bologna, anyway. Why? Because, with each advancing year, the Evolutionists’ “factual-theories” advance and get updated themselves. So, if it does get updated (i.e. changed), then how was it ever a fact to begin with? … Science is really based on learning and updating when new and better data comes in.
Wikipedia – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang : Significant progress in Big Bang cosmology has been made since the late 1990s as a result of advances in telescope technology as well as the analysis of data from satellites such as the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE),[71] the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP.
Well, I say that is fine – but, again, how does that justify past factual-theories as to being actual facts? This is how some Evolutionist Scientists gain the upper-hand in the Evolution versus Creation debate by saying that Creationists are not real scientists, but are, instead, religiously unscientific minded folks – or, are simply religious fanatics – and, that their science theories are just that: unproven theories (a term – theory – which can only be factual for “real” scientists); and, which theories (that, in many cases, are based upon the biblical text), and, in many of their opinions, simply cannot be proven factual in the consideration of earth and steller sciences … However, and despite these sort of thoughts, all endeavors of science (it must be understood) should really be equally looked upon and considered – whether it’s embracing Evolution in its entirety, or toward a strict Christian Creationist model – and, even for those who fall in-between those categories somewhere – especially given equal times of intelligent consideration for the sakes of students – who deserve a well-balanced education; for, the best observations should be considered and kept, even if it irks many preconceived ideas and biases ... On the Wikipedia webpage, that I gave the address for a moment ago, and when considering the question of what had exploded (or, they’re now saying “expanded”), they have absolutely no answers to give:
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation, since astronomical data about them are not available…
Then, further on, they admit that The Big Bang Theory cannot answer all questions about the beginnings of life:
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is that it fully explains the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not describe how energy, time, and space was caused, but rather it describes the emergence of the present universe from an ultra-dense and high-temperature initial state.
So, how can it be truly said that it’s impossible for God to have created energy, time, space, matter, and the universal laws? Many avoid such a thought, and with much passion, too! … I’m also well aware that many people see a “harmony” between “science and religion,” saying that God possibly was the one who had “created” the Big Bang. Without getting into that subject here, for I’ve already went over former college professor Phillip E. Johnson’s wonderful words (from his book 'Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds,' [1997 InterVarsity Press]) in my book “In the Beginning: It was spiritual from the very start,” in saying that there really “isn’t” harmony between Evolutionistic science and – not religion! – but, Creation Science. Please either consult his book for this discussion (which had been well written and thought-out), or my former book on the matter … Big Bang theorists have much to say on their subject, but they cannot explain the very beginnings of the universe, or of how matter came to be. But, if they never consider a Creator to have had a hand in it somewhere, somehow, then they’ll never know; for, first of all, they cannot see or understand the things that are “outside” the realms of science – which is the true origin of natural matter. That is, God created all things!
Romans 1:20a
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made…
Colossians 1:15b
…the invisible God…
1 Timothy 1:17b
…the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God…
So, if Evolutional science cannot explain the origins of their own theories (for, they have no true model to begin from), then how can we even believe that they have “dates” as to when all this happened? Which “dates,” by the way, extends to billions and billions of years ago.
Wikipedia – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang : The known laws of physics can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme density and temperature. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang at around 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.
Do you not know that anything could have happened in that length of time? Do you realize how long ago that really was? In a YouTube video by credentialed scientist Eric J. Lerner (who, in 1991, wrote the book: “The Big Bang Never Happened”), you can see just how much this man damages the theory, for many things have to be ignored to even believe in it:
“The Real Crisis in Cosmology - The Big Bang Never Happened:” www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KkhRibBllU …
Also, there are many pages online which refute the theory, as well – and, not all participants can be proved to be religious fanatics … Too, one of the worst things that Wikipedia adds to this topic, and I’ve heard this before, is:
…it [The Big Bang Theory] has become one of the liveliest areas in the discourse between science and religion…
Do you see what this is insinuating? Anybody that does not believe the real experts in science are only religious fanatics who scoff at science and are still living in the dark ages. No, this is not a matter of science vs religion, this is a matter of science vs science – and, especially, when it comes to the shaky Big Bang Theory.
**Cosmic or Macro-Evolution…
– Of which, The Big Bang Theory is certainly a part of … Actually, and according to creationtoday.org/six-meanings-of-evo... , there are really six meanings to the one word Evolution: 1) Cosmic Evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the Big Bang; 2) Chemical Evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen; 3) Stellar Evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds; 4) Organic Evolution: life begins from inanimate matter; 5) Macro-Evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another; and 6) Micro-Evolution: variations form within the “kind.” Only the last one, Micro-Evolution, has anything to do with real science … When discussing or considering Evolution, you have to take into consideration (and, you'll do yourself a favor by doing so!) that there is a huge difference between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution (I speak on Macro and Micro Evolution here because it’s the most popular topic that’s discussed on the general subject of Evolution; for, again, Macro says that one kind of an animal can change into a completely, incompatible and different kind of animal) … If you simply say to those who hold such beliefs that there is no Evolution, they'll think you a moron and an uneducated oaf; for, it's now turned into a words-game! So, what's the difference? Micro-Evolution tells us that there are "changes" in and on the earth over time; which, is actually true (as I'll explain further in a moment). But, Macro-Evolution says that there are changes within "species" themselves. Such as a human had "evolved" from a type of a long-ago extinct ape, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years ago. That's where proof is actually lacking. But, Evolutionist educators try to have you buy into Macro-Evolution because they can actually prove Micro-Evolution. It's the 'ol bait-and-switch game! But, even so, what's Micro-Evolution boil down to? Well, you can have changes within a "species." Such as, you can get a little dog from a bigger dog. You can get a variety of different kinds of dogs from other kinds of dogs. You might even get a wolf from a dog. But, that's just it – they're still changes within the same "kind" of animal. And, that kind of science can actually be observable, demonstrated, and provable – which is what we call "empirical science," or "empirical evidence;" which Wikipedia says "is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation." But, what's not observable, nor empirical, is that you can get one kind of an animal from a completely different kind. That's where we start having problems with Evolution. For example, you'll never be able to get a deer to mate with a jackrabbit and get a Jackalope. It just simply doesn't happen, folks. And, yet, we're all supposed to buy into it because Micro-Evolution can be observed ... Hum! ... By the way, I purposely "put into quotations" both the words "species" and "kind" because I do not believe there to be such a thing as a species (that is, as the term is so forwarded by Evolutional Scientists – which wording is adopted by them to examine Macro-Evolution***); but, I do believe in kinds, as is so expressed by the Bible.
Genesis 1:21-25
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And, yet, it never said that a different "kind" would come from another different kind. And, again, it cannot be proved by any scientific observations; nor can it ever be empirical science. But, all the year long we can watch a variety (micro-evolution) of animals breed with each other, who are of the same kind as they ... But, what exactly is a kind, one may ask? Well, it's simpler to answer than of what a species is – that's for sure! There are dog kinds; there's horse kinds; cat kinds; elephant kinds; etc. In other words, animals who can successfully breed with one another are the same kind ... For more information on this controversial debate, please go to: creationscience.com/onlinebook , the official website of Dr. Walt Brown. But, especially beginning on this page: creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSc... , which deals exclusively with Micro and Macro Evolution, and of their differences.
***Which wording is adopted by them to examine Macro-Evolution...
No, Evolutionists did not invent the word "species," but they certainly adopted it instead of the word "kind." However, and ironically, the original use of the word, and the original meaning, actually did mean "kind."
etymonline.com/word/species : Late 14c. as a classification in logic, from Latin species "a particular sort, kind, or type" (opposed to genus [which word some scientists may use instead of species, since it may get more specific for them in their minds]), originally "a sight, look, view, appearance," hence also "a spectacle; mental appearance, idea, notion; a look; a pretext; a resemblance; a show or display," typically in passive senses; in Late Latin, "a special case;" related to specere "to look at, to see, behold," from PIE root spek- "to observe." From 1550s as "appearance, outward form;" 1560s as "distinct class (of something) based on common characteristics." [i.e. not different kinds] Biological sense is from c. 1600. Endangered species first attested 1964.
Be that as it may, I guess different folks will observe this word – as they do science – with their own goggles. But, is that wrong to do? That is, to see things how you would like to see them? And, that is, whether it's right or wrong? Nay, friends, it's not wrong. But, what is wrong is in forcing others to believe them with you ... You'll find the guilty parties in all facets of life: in business, in science, in entertainment, in education, etc; and, even – God forbid – in religion!
*7. Like pottery on a potter's wheel...
Isaiah 29:16
Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
Isaiah 64:8
But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.
Romans 9:20-21
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
END OF EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR CHAPTER 1 "THE ORIGIN OF EVIL"
No comments have been added yet.
