tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11429029749209459282024-03-13T13:30:08.746-07:00Life in the UniverseUnderstanding the WorldWillie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-58110575715690596502018-06-30T02:22:00.013-07:002023-11-21T04:33:19.370-08:00Posts on this blog<span style="font-family: inherit;">Life is like a puzzle. Although one may think that the available pieces make sense, there may be other pieces that change all of that! This is the purpose of this blog: to provide information and interpretations on a wide range of issues, enabling readers to make sense of our world (and even their own lives) in an honest, coherent and sophisticated manner. "S/he who seeks will find!" The essays (some written in Afrikaans) were written by the scientist, philosopher and author Dr Willie Mc Loud (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy, MBL) [1] (and other authors) with the general reader in mind and engage with all sorts of interesting (and difficult) topics regarding science, philosophy, religion, the ancient Middle Eastern world, archaeology, eschatology, current events and other topics, bringing it all together in one coherent worldview. The essays argue for a balanced Christian worldview - between the extremes of secular Christianity and simplistic interpretations - providing a fresh and original perspective that is not a mere repetition or rehearsal of the usual views.<br /><br />The blog is dedicated to all those people who are willing to read with an open mind and carefully consider all the various nuanced aspects of the issues at hand. All those who identify themselves with the doubting Thomas may find in the pages of this blog the answers to the questions with which they are struggling. Many of the essays are written especially with you in mind. There is, however, one challenge: in our fast-moving world, one would have to make time to read the essays. And that may require some real effort and commitment - but is there anything of real value in life that is obtained without some effort? </span><div><br /></div><div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjZLMGEdmaN2L8IzP7-bL-7-DLlFhI0tLxeR9Qu9UcesvRiJoZk8BYRLxVdI19KHEydhEvS9Rz6KSIrH0EhCKZzd86qT2o4v0wy0R-zzQ0uBmLzKi3tq2XmXavou5BgPuyG7j-bEln5MoA2-YIzJM96oL13QZXmT-YtYnQAikFLn2H54izr_xAqLqZ-" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="622" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjZLMGEdmaN2L8IzP7-bL-7-DLlFhI0tLxeR9Qu9UcesvRiJoZk8BYRLxVdI19KHEydhEvS9Rz6KSIrH0EhCKZzd86qT2o4v0wy0R-zzQ0uBmLzKi3tq2XmXavou5BgPuyG7j-bEln5MoA2-YIzJM96oL13QZXmT-YtYnQAikFLn2H54izr_xAqLqZ-" width="124" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Thinker - Thomas Eakins</td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />When we really listen to each other, we may find true answers in real conversation. At the same time, the essays provide tools, knowledge, and information to engage with others in everyday conversations about their faith. Take time and work through the topics which interest you and you may find the journey truly rewarding. <br /><br />To facilitate the reader's access to these essays, the most important ones (all with links to the essays) are listed below according to the topic they belong to. Essays that are "highly recommended" are marked with an asterisk. Readers are welcome to use the information, share or forward the essays and make use of them as they see fit [2]. </span><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">New Book Releases:</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09MHGNYZC" target="_blank">THE NEPHILIM, KINGS OF AN EPIC AGE</a></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09MHGNYZC" target="_blank">Secrets and Enigmas of the Sumerians and Akkadians</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Willem McLoud</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><div style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BNJZW6QD?notRedirectToSDP=1&ref_=dbs_mng_calw_1&storeType=ebooks">THE NEPHILIM, AN UNHOLY BROOD</a></span></span></div><div style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BNJZW6QD?notRedirectToSDP=1&ref_=dbs_mng_calw_1&storeType=ebooks">Secrets and Enigmas of an ancient Mediterranean Race</a></span></div><div style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Willem McLoud</span></div></span></div><div><br /></div><div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Nephilim-Bloodlines-Secrets-Merovingians-Carolingians-ebook/dp/B0CNBZH9TP/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=" target="_blank">THE NEPHILIM, GRAIL BLOODLINES</a></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Nephilim-Bloodlines-Secrets-Merovingians-Carolingians-ebook/dp/B0CNBZH9TP/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=" target="_blank">Secrets and Enigmas of the Merovingians and Carolingians</a></span></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Willem McLoud</span></div><div><br /></div><div><div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: large;">1. Kant, Noumena and Quantum Physics</span></span><br />
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://www.academia.edu/38283361/Kant_Noumena_and_Quantum_Physics.pdf" target="_blank">Kant, Noumena and Quantum Physics</a></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Published in </span><i style="color: #26282a;">Contemporary Studies in Kantian Philosophy</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;"> 3 (2018) (94 pages)</span></span></div>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">2. Science, Philosophy, and God</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 1: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/11/the-problem-of-spontaneity-in-quantum.html">The problem of spontaneity in quantum mechanics</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 2: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/03/science-and-our-restricted-human.html">Science and our restricted human understanding</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 3: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/science-and-metaphysics-in-search-of.html">Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot</a> (*)</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 4. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/11/science-and-spiritual-realm.html">Science and the spiritual realm</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 5. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/03/in-defense-of-soul.html" target="_blank">In defence of the soul</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 6: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/06/science-and-atheism.html" target="_blank">Science and Atheism</a> (*)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 7: <a href="https://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/10/science-and-spiritual-intuition.html" target="_blank">Science and spiritual intuition</a></span><br />
Part 8: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-christian-and-evolution.html" target="_blank">The Christian and Evolution</a> (*)<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/08/a-critique-of-archaeology-as-science.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">A critique of archaeology as a science</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/03/part-2-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">An archaeological perspective on the Bible</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/06/a-critique-of-biblical-criticism-as.html" target="_blank">A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline</a> (*)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/04/part-1-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">A hermeneutical perspective on the Bible</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/10/is-spirit-world-more-than-idea.html" target="_blank">Is the spirit world more than an idea?</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">3. Can we still believe the Bible? (*)</span><br />
<br />
Part 1. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2014/04/part-1-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective (*)</a><br />
Part 2. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2015/03/part-2-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective (*)</a><br />
Part 3. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/04/part-3-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">Can we still believe the Bible? A scientific perspective</a> (*)<br />
Part 4. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/05/part-4-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">Can we still believe the Bible? A prophetic perspective</a> (*)<br />
Part 5. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/03/abraham-holds-key.html" target="_blank">Can we still believe the Bible? An ancient world perspective</a> (*)<br />
(The Sumerian Hypothesis: Abraham holds the key)<br />
<br /><span style="font-size: large;">4. A New Ancient Near Eastern Chronology</span></div><div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br /></div><div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><a href="https://www.academia.edu/53082879/A_New_Ancient_Middle_Eastern_Chronological_Model">A New Ancient Middle Eastern Chronological Model </a></div><div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Published the the <i>Journal for Semitics</i> 28/2 (2019)</div><div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br /></div><div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><a href="https://www.academia.edu/53084499/The_Epic_of_Gulki%C5%A1ar_and_the_ANE_Chronologies">The Epic of Gulkisar and ANE chronology</a></div><div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Published in the <i>Journal for Semitics</i> 29/1 (2020)</div><div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">5. The Sumerian Hypothesis</span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://upjournals.co.za/index.php/JSEM/article/view/8435">The Sumerian Hypothesis</a></span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Published in the <i>Journal for Semitics</i> 29/2 (2020)</span></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">6. Origins in the Book of Genesis</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Intro: <a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/09/the-book-of-genesis-sumerian-hypothesis.html" style="color: #888888;">The Book of Genesis</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 1: <a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2013/03/does-creation-narrative-of-genesis-1.html" style="color: #33aaff;">Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #666666;">Part 2: </span><a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2013/07/adam-and-eve-were-they-first-humans.html" style="color: #888888;">Adam and Eve: Were they the first humans</a><span style="color: #666666;">?</span> (*)<br /><span style="color: #666666;">Part 3: </span><a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-garden-of-eden-was-it-real-place.html" style="color: #888888;">The Garden of Eden: Was it a real place?</a></span><br />
<div style="color: #666666;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 4: <a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-serpent-of-paradise.html" style="color: #888888;">The Serpent of Paradise</a></span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 5: <a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2015/06/reconsidering-fall.html" style="color: #888888;">Reconsidering the Fal</a>l</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #666666;">Part 6: </span><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/02/the-origins-of-satan-ancient-worldview.html" style="color: #888888;" target="_blank">The ancient worldview: the origins of Satan</a><br /><span style="color: #444444;">Part 7:</span><span style="color: black;"> <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/06/who-is-elohim.html" target="_blank">Who is Elohim?</a> (*)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #444444;">Part 8:</span><span style="color: black;"> <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/04/the-ancient-history-of-genesis-4-11.html" target="_blank">The "ancient history" of Genesis 4-11: Myth or history?</a></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #444444;">Part 9:</span><span style="color: black;"> <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-great-flood-did-it-really-happen.html" target="_blank">The Great Flood: Did it really happen?</a></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444;">Part 10:</span> <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/03/abraham-holds-key.html" style="color: #666666;" target="_blank">Abraham holds the key</a> (*)<br />
<span style="color: #666666;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/07/an-introduction-to-ancient-sumerian.html" style="color: #666666;" target="_blank">An introduction to ancient Sumerian religious literature</a><span style="color: #444444;"> (Johan Coetser)</span></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-size: large;">7. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: black;"><span style="color: #666666;">Eschatology</span></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 1: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/04/bible-prophecy-predicting-distant-future.html" style="color: #888888;" target="_blank">Bible prophecy: predicting the distant future?</a></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 2: </span><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/05/the-rise-of-final-world-empire.html" style="color: #888888;" target="_blank">The rise of the final world empire: the different views</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 3: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/05/the-final-seven-years-different-views.html" style="color: #888888;" target="_blank">The final seven years: the different views</a></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 4: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/10/the-final-antichrist-different-views.html" target="_blank">The final Antichrist: the different views</a></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div style="color: #666666;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 5: </span><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/10/when-can-second-coming-of-jesus-be.html" style="color: #888888;" target="_blank">When can the Second Coming of Jesus be expected?</a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #444444;">Part 6: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-rapture-different-views.html" target="_blank">The Rapture: The different views</a></span><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/04/a-very-remarkable-prophecy.html" style="color: #666666;" target="_blank">A very remarkable prophecy</a><span style="color: #666666;"> (*)</span></span><br />
<div style="color: #666666;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/05/the-jews-people-of-god.html" target="_blank">The Jews: the people of God?</a></span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">8. Afrikaanse essays</span><br /><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/08/die-probleem-met-goddelike-wreedheid-in.html" target="_blank">Die probleem met Goddelike wreedheid in die Ou Testament</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/11/kan-ons-nog-in-die-hemel-glo.html" target="_blank">Kan ons nog in die hemel glo?</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/02/die-limiete-van-argeologie-en.html" target="_blank">Die limiete van argeologie en teksstudies: die uittog</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/04/om-te-glo-of-nie-te-glo-nie.html" target="_blank">Om te glo of nie te glo nie</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2011/11/wetenskap-en-geloof.html" target="_blank">Wetenskap en geloof</a></span><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/12/die-christen-en-die-markplein.html" target="_blank">Die Christen en die Markplein</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/10/paradigmas-in-konflik-bybelwetenskap-vs.html" target="_blank">Paradigmas in konflik: Bybelwetenskap vs tradisionalisme</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/07/die-kerk-is-by-n-kruispad-n-ope-brief.html" style="color: #888888;">Die kerk is by 'n kruispad: 'n ope brief aan die kerk</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/01/middelgrond-in-die-geloof.html" style="color: #888888;">Middelgrond in die geloof</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/01/wat-moet-christene-in-n-tyd-soos.html" style="color: #888888;">Wat moet Christene in 'n tyd soos hierdie doen?</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/02/hoe-moet-christene-die-huidige.html" style="color: #888888;">Hoe moet Christene die huidige paradigma-verskuiwing in die samelewing benader?</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/01/die-tien-horings-van-daniel-7-waarna.html" target="_blank">Die tien horings van Daniel 7 - waarna verwys dit?</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/03/die-nuwe-toring-van-babel.html" target="_blank">Die Nuwe Toring van Babel</a><span style="background-color: transparent;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/10/die-goderaad-in-hebreeuse-tradisie.html" target="_blank">Die goderaad in Hebreeuse tradisie</a></div>
<br /><span style="color: #666666;"><span style="font-size: large;">9. Spiritual/geestelik</span></span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #666666;" />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/11/meeting-god.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888;" target="_blank">Meeting God</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/09/the-power-of-god.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Power of God</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/07/wrong-choices.html" style="background-color: white; color: #33aaff;" target="_blank">Wrong choices</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/12/something-or-someone-is-missing.html" target="_blank">Something or Someone is missing?</a> (Dr. Francois Carr)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/11/revival-is-of-lord.html" target="_blank">Revival is of the Lord</a> (Arjan Baan)</span><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/04/a-message-for-church.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">A message for the church</span></a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/08/god-hoor.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888;" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">God hoor</span></a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/04/die-profeet.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Die profeet</span></a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/06/om-god-te-glo.html" target="_blank">Om God te glo</a><br />
<br /><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">10. Dialogistics/Apologetics</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/01/towards-dialogistic-approach.html" target="_blank">Towards a new dialogistic approach</a></span><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/06/science-and-atheism.html" target="_blank">Science and Atheism</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/12/engaging-with-atheists-and-agnostics.html" style="color: #888888;">Engaging with atheists and agnostics</a><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/science-and-metaphysics-in-search-of.html" style="color: #888888;">Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/09/postmodernism-faces-its-first-great.html" target="_blank">Postmodernism faces its first great challenge</a></span></div>
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/05/biblical-inspiration-in-postmodern-world.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Biblical inspiration: in a postmodern world</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/05/faith-and-reason-finding-balance.html" target="_blank">Faith and reason: finding the balance</a></span><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/01/the-importance-of-septuagint-in.html" target="_blank">The importance of the Septuagint in Biblical studies</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/07/on-christian-morality.html" target="_blank">On Christian morality</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/06/nietzsche-and-use-and-abuse-of-darwin.html" target="_blank">Nietzsche and the use and abuse of Darwin for life</a> (Dr Louise Mabille)<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/09/darwins-doubt.html" target="_blank">Darwin's Doubt</a> (book review)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/09/the-god-impulse.html" target="_blank">The God Impulse</a> (book review)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">11. Current events</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/07/brexit-what-to-expect.html" target="_blank">Brexit: What to expect</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/04/a-new-iranian-empire-is-rising.html" target="_blank">A New Iranian Empire is rising</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/07/the-european-union-forever-rising.html" target="_blank">The European Union: forever rising</a></span><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-pursuit-of-geopolitical-power-in.html" target="_blank">The pursuit of geopolitical power in an emerging multi-polar world</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2012/02/predicting-war-against-iran-inquiry.html" target="_blank">Predicting a war against Iran? - an inquiry into war and peace cycles</a><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/06/is-third-world-war-brewing.html" target="_blank">Is a Third World War brewing?</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><a href="https://coreideas.co/">COREideas</a></span></div><div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">YouTube: </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL32UbBVmmuTa7EfqxrfVRXBLNpFpDqr8L" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-large;">BIBLE-GPS</a>; <span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCObcXDjjc7RmFaQjJp9i0qA">COREIdeas</a></span></div><div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">(New videos are uploaded here. Subscribe to be informed about new releases.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[1] Books by Dr. Willie Mc Loud (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy, MBL):</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Akteurs in die Laaste Drama, 'n studie van Openbaring 13 en 17</i> (1989)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Alles omtrent die "New Age" </i>(1990)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Op pad </i></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>na Armageddon, 31 bepeinsings oor Openbaring en ander Bybelprofesie</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"><i>ë</i></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> (1995)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Alles omtrent die opkomende Antichristelike orde</i> (2000)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Die Arabiese Opstande</i> (Griffel Media, 2011)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Op soek na Abraham en sy God</i> (Griffel Media, 2012)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">[2] Due recognition is required according to accepted copyright practice. Since all the essays include a reference to the author, they may be freely shared, distributed and circulated.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div>Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-30959041976138189032018-06-19T00:31:00.001-07:002019-08-01T06:53:13.674-07:00Om God te glo<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Daar is sekere dinge wat net daardie Christene verstaan wat
in ‘n ware verhouding met God leef. Een hiervan is die stem van God. Skielik,
onverwags, ervaar sulke persone in hul diepste menswees ‘n onverklaarbare wete
dat God praat. Soms is dit wanneer hulle stiltetyd hou. Terwyl hulle deur die teks
van die Bybel lees gebeur dit soms – en gewoonlik heeltemal onverwags – dat ‘n
teks of ‘n gedeelte van ‘n teks skielik op ‘n baie persoonlike wyse lewend word
en daar ‘n bewustheid kom dat God praat. Alhoewel dit ook gebeur dat Christene
hulle eie begeertes in die teks inlees doen dit geen afbreek aan die feit dat
God inderdaad met sy kinders praat nie.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;">God praat nie net met sy kinders nie. Somtyds sê God aan
hulle wat in die toekoms sal gebeur. Dit gebeur gewoonlik in die vorm van beloftes
wat God gee. Wanneer Christene die stem van God hoor – soos die skape die stem
van hul herder hoor soos Jesus noem – dan gebeur dit dat hulle besef dat
daardie belofte baie direk op dinge in hul eie lewe van toepassing is. Tussen
al die baie beloftes in die Bybel, is daar dan daardie enkeles wat God baie
direk aan sy kinders binne hul bepaalde omstandighede gee. Daardie beloftes is
God se woorde wat direk op hulle van toepassing is. Sulke beloftes is soms baie
spesifiek. En dan weet sy kinders dat dit wat God gesê het ook sal gebeur.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Soms lyk dit of omstandighede baie direk teen God se
gegewe beloftes ingaan. Dinge gebeur wat lyk of dit God se beloftes totaal weerspreek.
Dan kom die versoeking om te dink dat ons ons maar misgis het. Maar diegene wat
sy stem ken weet dit is nie die regte antwoord nie. Vir hulle kan dit ‘n
sielewroeging raak omdat dit lyk of God se woord nie uitkom nie. Of God nie sy woord
volbring het nie. Dan lyk dit of als verlore is en of dit wat God gesê het
onder geen omstandighede kan gebeur nie. Dit lyk of God ons versaak het.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Onder sulke omstandighede is daar ‘n paar opsies. Die een
is om God te verwyt en kwaad te wees vir Hom. Om sy karakter as die God van sy woord
te bevraagtaken. Die ander is om als waarin jy glo te hersien – miskien ken jy
nie regtig die stem van die Here nie? Dalk was dit maar net ‘n vergissing? Maar
as God baie duidelik gepraat het is dit nie so maklik om dit eenkant toe te
stoot nie. Dan is die vraag: gaan ons bly glo of gaan ons maar moed opgee? Gaan
ons soos Abraham “teen hoop op hoop” bly glo of gaan ons maar tou opgooi en
aanvaar dat dinge nie uitgewerk het soos ons geglo het nie? Die Christen kan
egter ook volhard in die geloof en gewoon die hele situasie aan die Here oorgee
met ‘n innerlike vrede wat berus dat Hy wel weet wat Hy doen. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Image result for abraham God painting" src="http://www.canvasreplicas.com/images/Angel%20Stopping%20Abraham%20from%20Sacrificing%20Isaac%20to%20God%20Rembrandt%20van%20Rijn.jpg" height="400" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="268" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Die engel keer dat Abraham vir Isak aan God offer - Rembrandt van Rijn</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />Ek glo dat God ons geloof eer. Wanneer ons Hom vertrou
teen alle omstandighede en “bewyse” in. Ek was al by geleentheid in
omstandighede waar my geloof tot die uiterste getoets is. Waar dit vir my gelyk
het daar is geen manier waarop God se woord kan uitkom nie. Maar dan dink ek
terug aan tye waartydens ek voor die versoeking was om op te gee en ek besluit
het om God op sy woord te neem. En waar ek gesien het dat God inderdaad die God
is wat sy woord hou. Ja, dat Hy die God van wonders is. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="AF">Ek onthou ‘n paar sulke geleenthede. Ek was nog ‘n
student op Stellenbosch Universiteit toe die Here die belofte aan my gegee het:
“die wat in Hom glo sal nooit beskaamd staan nie” (1 Pet. 2:6). So gebeur dit
in my tweede studiejaar dat ek tydens ‘n predikaattoets ‘n totale “blank” slaan
(ek onthou die vak was Optika). Alhoewel ek die vorige dag al die werk
deurgegaan het, was dit als skielik weg. En indien ek die toets sou dop moes ek
die vak herhaal. Ek onthou hoe ek daar gesit en gedink het: Here, ek dien u. Alhoewel
my geestelike werk baie tyd in beslag neem, het ek wel als </span><span lang="AF">deurgegaan.
U het belowe en ek gaan nie maar tou opgooi en uitloop nie! Ek gaan in geloof bly sit!<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="AF"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So sit ek maar daar en bekyk die vraestel. Als lyk soos
Grieks! Na meer as ‘n uur (van die twee-uur vraestel) het ek nog niks geskryf
nie. En toe: terwyl ek so kyk, sien ek die getal langs een van die vrae wat
soos ‘n puntetoekenning lyk maar wat ek skielik in my hart weet is die antwoord
wat om een of ander wyse deurgeglip het op die vraestel. Ek gebruik toe die
getal (ek dink dit was 2) en stel dit terug in die formule. Vandaar doen ek die
hele vraag terugwerkend. Ek was skaars klaar toe is die tyd verby. En so kry ek
toe 40 % (volpunte vir die vraag!) - my laagste punt ooit maar genoeg om
eksamen te gaan skryf.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Ek onthou nog ‘n geval. In later jare toe ek reeds getroud
was het die Here vir my ‘n belofte gegee dat Marthé weer sou swanger word. Sy
het verskeie miskrame gehad en toe sê die Here: “Daar sal geen misdragtige of
onvrugbare in jou land wees nie” (Ex. 23:26). Sy raak toe weer swanger. Terwyl
ek met ‘n uitreik in ‘n ander dorp besig was, bel sy en laat weet dat sy weer
bloei. Dit was hoe al die vorige miskrame aangekondig is! Als het geblyk
verlore te wees. Ek het in die kamer gegaan en die Here ernstig aan sy belofte
herinner. Ek het Hom daarop gewys dat Hy die God van sy woord is. Toe ek weer
met Marthé praat hoor ek sy is in die hospital opgeneem en dat die hartjie
wonder bo wonder teen alle verwagtinge in steeds klop! En so het my jongste
vasgebyt en is sy later gebore.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Ek kan nog verskeie sulke gevalle onthou. Ek kan ‘n meer
onlangse een vertel. ‘n Paar jaar gelede het ek vir my meestersgraad in filosofie
by UCT ingeskryf. Die graad het uit ‘n deel kursuswerk bestaan wat ek in die eerste
jaar moes voltooi asook ‘n kort tesis wat ek daarna moes skryf. Ek het die
tesis – wat op die filosofie van Immanuel Kant en kwantum fisika gefokus het – in die volgende jaar voltooi (met dubbel die toegelate hoeveelheid woorde!). Die finale
uitslag sloer toe vir omtrent 6 maande. Uiteindelik hoor ek van die
universiteit en maak ‘n afspraak om die prof te gaan sien. Daardie oggende sê
die Here: “die steen wat die bouers verwerp het, het die hoeksteen geword”
(Matt. 21:42). Ek besef toe daar is moeilikheid. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Uiteindelik vind ek dat die twee eksterne eksaminatore (van
die VSA en Spanje onderskeidelik) dramaties van mekaar verskil het. Die een het in sy verslag geskryf: “the thesis is a remarkable achievement and truly
outstanding” asook “This MA thesis is better than most PhD theses I have read”
terwyl die ander een ‘n baie meer negatiewe opinie gehad het. Uiteindelik het
die tweede eksaminator se punt gegeld. Alhoewel dit ‘n heel gemiddelde punt
was, was ek baie teleurgesteld omdat ek ‘n baie beter punt verwag het (ek het
my honneurs in filosofie met lof geslaag).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Op grond van die belofte het ek besluit om die essay aan
uitgewers te stuur. Ongelukkig was daar maar min wat bereid was om so ‘n lang
essay vir publikasie te oorweeg. Ek het dus meestal maar die eerste hoofstuk
gestuur. Ek is drie maal weggewys. Soms was
ek maar baie moedeloos en het gewonder of die woord van die Here ooit sou
uitkom. Tog is die Here getrou. Uiteindelik is die essay (wat intussen tot ‘n
monograaf gegroei het soos ek die terugvoer bygewerk het!) deur ‘n
internasionale aanlyntydskrif aanvaar wat spesialiseer in die werk van Immanuel
Kant - met vyf keurders wat dit moes oorweeg. Dit is onlangs gepubliseer ("Kant, Noumena and Quantum Physics" in <i>Contemporary Studies in Kantian Philosophy</i> 3, 2018)</span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">. Ek het net weereens
besef dat die Here altyd getrou is.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Ek hoop my getuienis sal vir andere tot bemoediging dien.
Deur al die baie jare wat ek die Here ken, het ek gevind dat ons Hom absoluut
kan vertrou. Al maak dinge glad nie sin nie. Al lyk dit of die feite die geloof
heeltemal weerspreek. Al lyk dit totaal onmoontlik. Die Here is die God van sy woord
soos ons lees: “God is geen man dat Hy sou lieg nie; of ‘n mensekind dat dit Hom
sou berou nie. Sou Hy iets sê en dit nie doen nie, of spreek en dit nie waar maak nie?” (Num. 23:19). Ons kan Hom
vertrou. Soos Abraham moet ons die toets van geloof deurstaan – al neem dit
baie jare voor die woord van die Here uitkom. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Na so baie jare kan ek maar net sê dat dit vir my so ‘n
wonderlike voorreg is om die Here God te ken. Om Hom te dien. Om te weet: Hy is
die Almagtige God wat als in sy hand hou. Ons kan God en sy weë nie verstaan
nie. Ons moet ook nie probeer nie. Maar as God werklik iets gesê het dan sal Hy
dit ook doen as ons Hom op sy woord neem. Hy is die Here. Hy is die God van sy woord!<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="AF"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-69246865768498990362018-06-01T23:16:00.000-07:002019-08-02T04:47:53.973-07:00Nietzsche and the use and abuse of Darwin for life<div class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>It is possible to interpret Nietzsche as a naturalist. ‘Returning man to Nature’ forms an important aspect of his ideas. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to place Nietzsche in the same category as Darwin, and much of his criticism against Darwin may in fact resonate with Christians, to such an extent that, of carefully considered, Nietzsche’s ideas may even be considered as a source for apologetics. An essay by Louise Mabille.</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;">As much as Nietzsche drew upon Darwin, the natural historian was for him not much more than a footnote to Hegel. He is the biological symptom of an age sick with its own history. Indeed, he goes as far as to say that ‘without Hegel, there would have been no Darwin’ (<i>Gay Science</i> 357).</span><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600"
o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f"
stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/>
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/>
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/>
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/>
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/>
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/>
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/>
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_3" o:spid="_x0000_s1026" type="#_x0000_t75"
style='position:absolute;left:0;text-align:left;margin-left:0;margin-top:82.9pt;
width:300pt;height:203.25pt;z-index:-1;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square;
mso-wrap-distance-left:9pt;mso-wrap-distance-top:0;mso-wrap-distance-right:9pt;
mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;mso-position-horizontal:absolute;
mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;mso-position-vertical:absolute;
mso-position-vertical-relative:text' wrapcoords="0 0 0 21520 21492 21520 21492 0 0 0">
<v:imagedata src="file:///C:\Users\Willie\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.jpg"
o:title=""/>
<w:wrap type="tight"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"> Both Hegel and Darwin are ‘deifiers of success’ who see human history in terms of a single narrative, driven by a single mechanism, lending a stifling inevitability to </span></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXnL4_ui5UtqSzfFNUU5REJAmkZ62k8ac7AhyWjQHRC9d87RC65bW4bc9MPvMeokfv83Vu0YlaAGOyM4Hz2x2Tse-4hxdKUAv7DbB4C-pzGmqJGGMJE3VQI4CweTkkpEMdnc2_stc2ykA/s1600/Nietzsche.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="311" data-original-width="462" height="268" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXnL4_ui5UtqSzfFNUU5REJAmkZ62k8ac7AhyWjQHRC9d87RC65bW4bc9MPvMeokfv83Vu0YlaAGOyM4Hz2x2Tse-4hxdKUAv7DbB4C-pzGmqJGGMJE3VQI4CweTkkpEMdnc2_stc2ykA/s400/Nietzsche.PNG" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">it. Before anything else, Darwin added to the contemporary problem of seeing history as a <i>process</i>. One of the most dangerous responses to nihilism – which without a doubt exacerbated it – is the insistence upon rational explanations that master the vagaries of human existence in its totality. Science appears to offer a respite from the shakiness of worldly existence by including all events and actions under abstract laws of development. In this way a false sense of optimism is created: transitory existence is redeemed by participating in the progressive unfolding of higher aims of history. But why stop at the <i>human</i> species? This narrative could include the totality of biological life!<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Besides Darwin’s failure to deliver on creative potential, Nietzsche found it very disappointing that the eschatology implied by his discoveries did not materialize. It was not the fact that Darwin killed God that raised the Nietzschean ire, but the fact that God was still very much alive after the reception of <i>The Origin of the Species</i>. All that Darwin in truth provided was a succinct <i>history</i> of the species. And Nietzsche makes clear in the second <i>Untimely Meditation</i> that the deification of history, particularly in the form of a Hegelian-styled Reason that pervades history and suggests that there is a progressive, rational movement immanent to history is especially problematic. This historical ‘illness’ leads to debilitation, whether in the form of idealism, or more commonly the case in England, materialism.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Nietzsche is often grouped together with a number of ‘hermeneuticians of suspicion’, thinkers who undermined the easy and certain subjectivity that flowed from Descartes. This conception of subjectivity, which as we have seen in our Locke chapter, takes an established subject <i>sub specie aeternitates </i>for granted. That is to say, philosophy departs from an immutable subject beyond time that serves as the foundation for the entire philosophical edifice that developed during the Enlightenment. The hermeneuticians of suspicion in question usually refer to Nietzsche, Marx and Freud, but Darwin is often included, too. Nietzsche, being Nietzsche, takes suspicion one step further, and subjected Darwin (or Darwinism, to be precise) to a perspectivist critique. One can be suspicious even of the hermeneutician of suspicion that failed to take his own prejudices into account. Nietzsche returned Darwin to the nineteenth century, in other words, he examined the prejudices upon which his assumptions rested, such as the ability of the rational mind to render the world fully transparent.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Many of Nietzsche’s insights can be traced to scientific materialist origins and much of his vocabulary is derived from biological origins. This does not mean, however, that they can after all be fit into the uncomfortable metanarratives of biological perfection. It would be more correct to say that scientific materialism served as a fount of inspiration, much as he drew upon literary muses like Goethe and Shakespeare; he did not simply follow in the wake of science’s success. His true critique concerns the residues of theologically derived moralism still present in natural science, not the ‘petty details’. As we have seen in our Bacon chapter, Nietzsche did not automatically regard the triumph of a scientific theory to be valuable in itself. ‘Correctness’ is not a criterion for strength. As a matter of fact, the success of natural science far too easily makes it a seat of power that lays down rigid new rules that breed a new kind of conformity. Because its ‘truths’ are easily ‘proven’, they are less easily challenged. To challenge arbitrary power is hard enough, but to go against the obviously ‘legitimate’ power of the scientist is simply beyond the <i>energy</i> of most people. Biological ‘truth’ gives slaves a reason to conform. And they hardly need any encouragement. Consider Nietzsche’s words from <i>Schopenhauer As Educator</i><u>:</u><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A traveller who had seen many countries, peoples and several of the earth's continents was asked what attribute he had found in men everywhere. He said: ‘They have a propensity for laziness.’ To others, it seems that he should have said: ‘They are all fearful. They hide themselves behind customs and opinions.’ In his heart every man knows quite well that, being unique, he will be in the world only once and that there will be no second chance for his oneness to coalesce from the strangely variegated assortment that he is: he knows it but hides it like a bad conscience—why? <i>SE</i>, opening lines).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The mere fact that a debate over the alleged ‘independence’ of the theory of evolution continues to crop up in Darwinist circles proves the need for a Nietzschean reminder of the importance of non-biological criteria for strength. In ‘Independence, history and natural selection’ Gregory Radick reminds his readers that ‘Darwin’s theory of natural selection was no gift of sheer, solitary genius, but in several key aspects a product of Victorian culture’.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Willie/Downloads/NIETZSCHE-DARWIN.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> This can be seen as an example of the inseparability thesis. This conclusion may be obvious to readers used to the death of the author, but even today Darwin is seen as a kind of <i>deus ex machine</i> (sic) that spontaneously brought enlightenment upon those still captured in the dark ages of religious belief. This is known as the independence thesis. According to this thesis, particular Victorian elements aided Darwin to identify a timeless truth about Nature. The identification of this thesis, however, was inevitable, if Darwin did not do so, someone else would have come along.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Thinkers like these fail to understand what the term <i>inevitable</i> really means in the context of human life: no discovery of anything in the world of contingency is ever inevitable. It is just as easy to conceive of a world where the theory of natural selection – despite its correctness or use value – were simply never discovered. There are thousands of paths that history could have taken. Furthermore, there are thousands of scientific facts that will simply never be discovered, and more still whose true significance and value will never be appreciated. Yet the human race will continue as it always has: with the ability to create either a rich, strong life, or a poor, mediocre one, out of the material available to it at a particular point in time. As can be seen in the work of John Stuart Mill, Victorian England, with its Empire to run, strongly emphasized <i>use</i>. It was a world with a strong contempt for the ‘superfluous’ (think eugenics and the disregard for the lives of the natives colonized during Empire-building) with a strong pragmatic touch, all sprinkled liberally with the economics of Adam Smith. Darwinism was, if not exactly inevitable, at least a <u>typical</u> product of Victorian England. According to the historian Robert Young, the creation myth as seen in the book of genesis was a myth that suited the agrarian, pastoral world ruled by aristocrats before the Industrial Revolution. Similarly, the theory of natural selection with its Malthusian undertones, obviously ‘reflects a competitive, urban, industrial world’. This means that Darwinism basically consists of a <i>reactive</i> vocabulary, shot through with herd sentiments. None other than Karl Marx, in a letter to his collaborator Friedrich Engels, wrote: ‘It is remarkable how Darwin recognizes among beasts and plants his English society with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, “inventions”, and the Malthusian struggle for existence. It is Hobbes’ <i>bellum ominum contra omnes’</i> [war of all against all]. (Marx quoted in Schmidt 1971: 46). This is already a case of one hermeneutician of suspicion suspecting another. It was of course Engels who famously put Darwin’s Malthusianism in its classic political context:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The whole Darwinist teaching of the struggle for existence is simply a transference from society to living nature of Hobbes’ <i>bellum ominum contra omnes</i><u>’</u>, and of the bourgeois-economic doctrine of competition together with Malthus’ theory of population. When this conjuror’s trick has been performed, the same theories are transferred back again from organic nature into history, and it is now claimed that their validity as eternal laws of human society has been proved.<span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Willie/Downloads/NIETZSCHE-DARWIN.docx#_ftn2" title=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span></a></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It is not clear how much Nietzsche derived directly from Darwin; most of his sources are second-hand, from sources like the Darwinians Ernst Haeckel, and Walter Bagehot, quoted twice in UM III, <i>Schopenhauer as Educator</i>. It is clear, however, that Nietzsche was familiar with Herbert Spencer’s <i>Data of Ethics</i>, translated into German in 1879. Whereas Darwin occupied himself more or less with pure science – inasmuch as science can be pure – Spencer developed a social theory around the theory of natural selection which is every bit as teleological as Hegel. Spencer upholds a model of human development that sees egoism and altruism eventually reconciled. Hegel’s influence is obvious in Spenserian remarks like ‘Truth generally lies in the co-ordination of antagonistic opinions’. This is mainly why Nietzsche regards him as a decadent.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Even the ideals of science can be deeply, even unconsciously, influenced by decadence: our entire sociology is proof of that. The objection to it is that from experience it knows only the form of decay of society, and inevitably it takes its own instincts of decay for the norms of sociological judgement.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In these norms, the life that is declining in present-day Europe formulates its social ideals: one cannot tell them from the ideals of out races that have outlived themselves –<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><u><span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;">The herd instinct</span></u><span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"> – a power that has now become sovereign – is something totally different from the instinct of an <u>aristocratic</u> society: and the value of the units determines the significance of the sum. Our entire sociology simply does not know any other instinct than that of the herd, i.e, that of <i>the sum of zeroes</i> – where every zero has equal rights; where it is virtuous to be zero. –<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The valuation that is today applied to the different forms of society is entirely identical with that which assigns a higher value to peace than to war: but this judgement is antibiological, itself a fruit of the decadence of life. – Life is a consequence of war, society itself a means to war. – As a biologist, Mr. Herbert Spencer is a decadent; as a moralist too (he considers the triumph of altruism a desideratum!!! (WP 53).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Darwin may have been a genius, but he was a timely one. That is, unlike Nietzsche himself, he fitted the values of his age, even if, superficially, he appeared to be in conflict with its key institutions. As we will see in our Mill chapter, his was an age that lacked ambition – mere survival and the search for pleasure was considered sufficient to serve as a sign of strength. However, survival is no measure for the <i>value </i>of life: it generates the same paradox as seeing the avoidance of pain and the hunt for pleasure as goals for existence. Natural selection gives us an account of how life came to be in its present form – not why the human phenomenon is worth having in the first place. Nietzsche gives us an answer to that question early in his <i>oeuvre</i>: it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that life is ultimately justified. That is, life becomes meaningful only through <i>human evaluation</i>. Although Nietzsche persistently asks that man be ‘translated back into nature’, he has something very different from Darwin in mind. Darwin certainly translates man back into nature. After <i>The Origin of the Species</i> there could no longer be a question of man as directly formed by a divine hand. However, there are better and worse translations. Edward Fitzgerald’s translation <i>The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyam </i>is a work of art in itself. Reading crude determinism into Nature is not.Before the publication of <i>The Origin of the Species</i>, the young German philologist took it for granted that the most important part of man’s history was a <u>natural</u> history. As early as <i>Homer’s Contest</i>, Nietzsche describes man as a creature immersed in nature:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When we speak of humanity, the idea is fundamental that this is something that separates and distinguishes man from nature. In reality, there is no such separation: ‘natural’ qualities and those we call truly ‘human’ are inseparably grown together. Man in his highest and noblest capacities, is wholly nature and embodies its uncanny dual nature (<i>Homer’s Contest</i>).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> What Nietzsche objected to, is that modernity failed to seize upon the advantages that the new Darwinian theory offered. Rather than to recognize Nature as ‘red in tooth and claw’, nineteenth century moralists like sought to place Christian morality on an even more secure basis than narrative ever did. At least the latter had a Machiavelli to show for it. Instead of freeing up space for mastership, the ‘rules’ that the likes of Spencer read into ‘Nature’ threatened to secure man more tightly than ever before in a position of slavery. Where the priest in the black cassock was, there the one in the white coat shall be. Call an ascetic by any other name…<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For Nietzsche, as was the case for Marx and Engels, the theory of natural selection only succeeds in lending support to the worst aspects of the reigning ideology. Nietzsche sees these as the reactive forces that triumphs in the form of modern culture. Giles Deleuze names these forces explicitly as ‘adaptation, evolution, progress, happiness for all, and the good of the community’<a href="file:///C:/Users/Willie/Downloads/NIETZSCHE-DARWIN.docx#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> Although Nietzsche obviously accepts the thesis that existence is struggle, he is far less optimistic that natural selection truly favours the strongest and the best. If anything, natural selection has only the welfare of the species in mind, not the quality of the individual. It appears to destroy the ill-adapted in a purely indifferent fashion, and forces species and individual alike to aim for a position of equilibrium and stability. Darwin himself made it clear in the third edition of <i>The Origin of the Species</i> that natural selection should not be understood as automatically bringing about variability; it is concerned only with the bringing about and preservation of variations that prove beneficial to a particular species and the environment in which it finds itself. As Ansell-Pearson points out, natural selection, with its emphasis on the preservation of the species, is actually a highly conservative strategy.<a href="file:///C:/Users/Willie/Downloads/NIETZSCHE-DARWIN.docx#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a> (Ansell-Pearson 2000: 89). Perhaps Marx and Engels were right: natural selection does appear to favour, if not the bourgeois in person, then at least their values. It should come as no surprise that John Stuart Mill, as hesitant as he was to grant natural selection the status of a fully-fledged scientific hypothesis, he was willing to acknowledge it as a real, and not fictional causal process, a vera causa. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At the beginning of ‘history’, it is of course an entirely different story. There the strong warrior class conquers openly. Gradually, however, the bad consciousness pushed man into decadent over-refinement, not a goal for which Nietzsche considers worth striving. Writing about Paul Rée in the Preface to <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i> –<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But he had read Darwin, so that to some extent in his hypotheses the Darwinian beast and the most modern modest and tender moral sensibility, which ‘no longer bites’, politely extend their hands to each other in a way that is at least entertaining—with the latter bearing a facial expression revealing a certain good-natured and refined indolence, in which is mixed a grain of pessimism and exhaustion, as if it is really not worth taking all these things, the problems of morality, so seriously (<i>GM</i>, Preface).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It is perhaps for this reason that Nietzsche avoids a Darwinian vocabulary in <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i>, and his Will to Power thesis. ‘Adaptation’ belongs to slaves; it is the yielding to external circumstances. It is an influence that shows itself only after the active, shaping powers have had their day on the worldly playing field. It is these forces that are of true importance in the world. The ‘English psychologist’ and scientist display their slavishness by depicting life in terms that bespeak poverty rather than richness. This is a sign of a fundamental <i>mistrus</i><u>t</u> in life, or the ‘musty air of English overpopulation’ (<i>GS</i> 349) and the ‘Salvation Army’ (<i>Beyond Good and Evil</i> 252). Like all the Englishmen hitherto discussed, Darwin, for all his interest in it, is secretly anti-life: for him, the will to self-preservation operates as an <i>excuse </i>for the struggles that accompany life in all its forms. It is thus, just like human laws formed under the delusion that it promotes ‘justice’ as a ‘means <i>against</i> fighting in general’ (<i>Genealogy of Morals II</i>, 12). This attitude is in fact an assassination of the future of man, ‘a secret path to nothingness’ (<i>GM</i> II, 12) of an unambitious thinker.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i><span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;">Anti-Darwin</span></i><span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;">. — As for the famous ‘struggle for existence’, so far it seems to me to be asserted rather than proved. It occurs, but as an exception; the total appearance of life is not the extremity, not starvation, but rather riches, profusion, even absurd squandering — and where there is struggle, it is a struggle for power. One should not mistake Malthus for nature.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Assuming, however, that there is such a struggle for existence — and, indeed, it occurs — its result is unfortunately the opposite of what Darwin's school desires, and of what one might perhaps desire with them — namely, in favor of the strong, the privileged, the fortunate exceptions. The species do not grow in perfection: the weak prevail over the strong again and again, for they are the great majority — and they are also more intelligent. Darwin forgot the spirit (that is English!); the weak have more spirit. One must need spirit to acquire spirit; one loses it when one no longer needs it. Whoever has strength dispenses with the spirit (‘Let it go!’ they think in Germany today; ‘the Reich must still remain to us’). It will be noted that by ‘spirit’ I mean care, patience, cunning, simulation, great self-control, and everything that is mimicry (the latter includes a great deal of so-called virtue). (<i>TwiIight of the Idols, Skirmishes Of An Untimely Man</i> 14).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Nietzsche prefers the less scientifically sound Lamarck, because he identified a truly active, plastic force prior in relation to adaptation – a force of metamorphosis. Strictly speaking, a revaluation of values would imply an overhaul of Darwinian values as well. This is perhaps why he distances himself from Darwin with such fierceness in <i>Ecce Hom</i><i>o </i>III I, where he expresses surprise at the naïve misunderstandings with which his <i>Zarathustra</i> was received ‘Other scholarly oxen have suspected me of Darwinism’.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A richer approach than the narrow notion of the ‘survival instinct’ is the idea of the Will to Power.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The wish to preserve oneself is the symptom of a condition of distress, of a limitation of the really fundamental instinct of life which aims at the expansion of power and wishing for that, frequently risks and even sacrifices self-preservation.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> […]<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">… that our modern natural sciences have become so thoroughly entangled in this Spinozaist dogma, most recently and worst of all, Darwinism with its incomprehensibly one-sided doctrine of the struggle for existence, is probably due to the origins of most natural scientists: In this respect they belong to the ‘common people’; their ancestors were poor and undistinguished people who knew the difficulties of survival only too well at first hand. The whole of English Darwinism breathes something like the musty air of English overpopulation, like the smell of the distress of and overcrowding of small people (<i>GS</i> 349).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Rather than to simply react to external forces, the Will to Power is part and parcel of them, creating forms from within; utilizing and exploiting external circumstances as the arena of its own agonal actions. To be true to Nietzsche though, the Will to Power is arena and actor all in one. With the will to Power, Nietzsche rehabilitates the active dimension to life, as well as the <u>playful</u> side to evolution. The development of an organism is no single story, there is no genuine link between origin and <u>telos</u>. Instead of speaking of evolution at all, one should rather speak of a series of successive life-forms subject to an immanent, open-ended dynamics. Understood in this way, every life-form is fluid and never final, nor are the aims or directions open to it. The world is indeed the Will to Power –<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">and nothing else besides. Darwinian evolution is but a moment in the operation of the Will to Power – its bourgeois face. As an approach to life, the Will to Power has much more to offer, it applies to all life forms, not merely the biological. It also includes the physiological, psychological, technological and cultural domains.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">[T]he ‘development’ of a thing, a practice, or an organ has nothing to do with its progress towards a single goal, even less is it the logical and shortest progress reached with the least expenditure of power and resources, but rather the sequence of more or less profound, more or less mutually independent processes of overpowering which take place on that thing, together with the resistance which arises against that overpowering each time, the transformations of form which have been attempted for the purpose of defence and reaction, the results of successful countermeasures. Form is fluid—the ‘meaning’, however, is even more so . . . Even within each individual organism things are no different: with every essential growth in the totality, the ‘meaning’ of an individual organ also shifts—in certain circumstances its partial destruction, a reduction of its numbers (for example, through the destruction of intermediate structures) can be a sign of growing power and perfection (<i>GM</i> II, 12).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Importantly, as both Paul Patton and Keith Ansell-Pearson have pointed out, what matters for Nietzsche is the <i>experience</i> of power, not its actual exercise. That is to say, power is evaluated in terms of its intensity, not its extensity. It is the battle <u>itself</u>, and one’s display of power in it, that matters, not some abstract teleological goal. Nietzsche was fast to distance himself from the utilitarian vocabulary of Charles Darwin:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">‘Useful’ in the sense of Darwinian biology means: proved advantageous in the struggle with others. But it seems to me that the feeling of increase, the feeling of becoming stronger, is itself, quite apart from any usefulness in the struggle, the real progress: only from this feeling arises the will to struggle – (<i>WP</i> 648).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Feeling powerful does not depend upon one’s comparative power over someone else, as is the case with undiluted Darwinism. This puts the value of self-preservation into an entirely new perspective. Nietzsche warns that we should not automatically assume that the mere continuance of life is life’s supreme goal:</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Physiologists should think again before positing the ‘instinct of preservation’ as the cardinal drive in an organic creature. A living thing wants above all to <i>discharge</i> its force: ‘preservation’ is only a consequence of this. Beware of <i>superfluous</i> teleological principles! The entire concept ‘instinct of preservation’ is one of them (WP 650).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As much as Nietzsche argued for a return to Nature, he did not want to have man dictated to by her. If, as we have seen in our Hume chapter, man was ultimately determined by the operations of nature, there was no need to emphasize this fact. Instead, man’s freedom as a creator had to be celebrated. Because Nietzsche frequently emphasizes Becoming over Being, it does not follow automatically that he is positing becoming as the essence of existence. What this means is that the nature of power precludes thinking of it as in terms of the termination of a process, a mere end. Instead, it is always transitive or intentional, it is <i>potential</i>. That is, power never simply brings about a sense of completeness and finality, rather, where there is life, there is struggle. Martin Heidegger has of course, famously declared Nietzsche to be the culmination of the metaphysical tradition, reading both the Eternal Recurrence and the Will to Power as reversed expressions of a traditional ontology. Johan Figl, too, also describes Nietzsche’s use of becoming as a process of substitution (Figl 1982: 73). Read this way, however, change becomes a new, stable ‘permanent’. If anything, the world is simply too mysterious, too feminine (that is, it always dons a mask) to allow for narrow metaphysical categories.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As German as it is to find rules in Reason (e.g. the Categorical Imperative), as English is it to find rules in Nature. If there is a moral to be derived from Nature, it is one that celebrates generosity. Only an Englishman, or to be fair, a nineteenth century Englishman, would argue that it is scarcity and lack that propels man forward.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But a natural scientist should come out of his human nook; and in nature it is not conditions of distress that are <i>dominant</i>, but overflow and squandering, even to the point of absurdity. The struggle for existence is only an <i>exception</i>, a temporary restriction of the will to life. The great and small struggle always revolves around superiority, around growth and expansion, around power – in accordance with the will to power which is the will to life (GS 349).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is a key difference between Nietzsche and Darwin. Nietzsche, for all his sharp words, do not evaluate Nature in harsh terms. Nature is more generous than harsh in the Nietzschean book. Furthermore, Nietzsche – who, after all, grew up in nineteenth century Germany, where <u>history</u> dominated everything – simply did not see evolution as such an earth-shattering fact, but simply one more episode in the history of metaphysics.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 28.8pt; margin-right: 28.8pt; margin-top: 0cm; mso-add-space: auto; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There are truths which are recognized best by mediocre minds because they are most suited to them, there are truths which possess charm and seductive powers only for mediocre spirits one is brought up against this perhaps disagreeable proposition just at the moment because the spirit of respectable but mediocre Englishmen ‑ I name Darwin, John Stuart Mill and Herbert ‑is starting to gain ascendancy in the midregion of European taste. <i>BGE </i>257).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Nature is as rich, generous and self-contradictory as Nietzsche’s texts, and therefore renders ethical naturalism a virtual impossibility. After all, an ethical naturalist needs an end or some standard in terms of which value can be measured. Lest any residual utilitarianism raises its ugly head, Nietzsche assures us that ‘well-being as you understand it – that seems to us no goal, that is an end, a state which soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible – which makes it <i>desirable</i> that he should perish (<i>BGE</i> 225). Endless becoming means that value is immeasurable, and that nature gives us no ethics. Instead, ‘becoming should be explained without recourse to final intention, becoming must appear justified at every moment or incapable of being evaluated; which amounts to the same thing (<i>WP</i> 708). This makes ethical naturalism, particularly the Darwinian version espoused by Richard Dawkins, difficult to maintain. Even if altruism should be proven to have Darwinian origins, as Dawkins holds, there is no reason why we should <i>follow</i> the ‘rule of nature’. In addition, Nietzsche speculates upon the ‘order of rank’ (<i>BGE</i> 228) among human values, holding that legislation values is what ultimately makes us human.</span></span><br />
<b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; line-height: 150%;"><br /></span></b> <b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; line-height: 150%;">Bibliography</span></b><br />
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; line-height: 150%;">Keith Ansell-Pearson, <i>Viroid Life</i>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; line-height: 150%;">Giles Deleuze, Nietzsche’s Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2006.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; line-height: 150%;">Johann Figl, <i>Interpretation Als Philosopisches Begriff</i>. Berlin: W. De Gruyter, 1982.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; line-height: 150%;">Jonathan Hodge and Geoffery Radick (eds.), <i>The Cambridge Companion to Darwin.</i> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; line-height: 150%;">John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark, <i>Capitalism’s War on the Earth</i>. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2010.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height: 150%;">
<span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; line-height: 150%;">Robert Young, <i>Darwin’s Metaphor</i>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Albrecht Schmidt, </span><i style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">The Concept of Nature in Marx</i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">. London: Allen and Unwin, 1971.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="ftn1">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Willie/Downloads/NIETZSCHE-DARWIN.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-ZA"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 107%;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span lang="EN-ZA"> Gregory Radick in <i>The Cambridge Companion to Darwin</i>, ed. By Hodge and Radick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p.144.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Willie/Downloads/NIETZSCHE-DARWIN.docx#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-ZA"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 107%;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span lang="EN-ZA"> <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_11_17-ab.htm">https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_11_17-ab.htm</a> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Willie/Downloads/NIETZSCHE-DARWIN.docx#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-ZA"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 107%;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span lang="EN-ZA"> </span>Giles Deleuze , Nietzsche and Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2006), p.151.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Willie/Downloads/NIETZSCHE-DARWIN.docx#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-ZA"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="line-height: 107%;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span lang="EN-ZA"> Keith Ansell-Pearson, Viroid Life (London: Routledge 2000), p. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Author: Dr Louise Mabille</span></span></span><br />
<span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Read other essays written by Louise on https://louisemabille.wordpress.com/</span></span><br />
<i style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Louise Mabille taught philosophy at the University of Pretoria, first as a tutor, then as a lecturer, between 2001 and 2013. After pursuing a Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Pretoria on Nietzsche’s concept of justice, she followed it up with a second one on Milton’s concept of parrhêsia, completed at the University of Hull in Yorkshire. She is currently attached to the Theology Faculty at the Northwestern University (NWU). </i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA-FARpgzXndYbsY4Kdj7l4QEc4-hY4ZyZrdfqKaxiCSkjIXk3GQNp2U2rMphG59yj7OEuMenClw1f1IargLsDd3GIMFtW_U9ctvYyalzLdCXLts_I7BO31biH0603iKSD4LFpvtKeyVY/s1600/Louise+Mabille.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" data-original-height="250" data-original-width="250" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgA-FARpgzXndYbsY4Kdj7l4QEc4-hY4ZyZrdfqKaxiCSkjIXk3GQNp2U2rMphG59yj7OEuMenClw1f1IargLsDd3GIMFtW_U9ctvYyalzLdCXLts_I7BO31biH0603iKSD4LFpvtKeyVY/s200/Louise+Mabille.jpg" width="200" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span> <span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com</span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<span lang="EN-ZA"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-38786202099194298492018-05-07T22:56:00.001-07:002021-02-27T06:17:39.492-08:00Part 4. Can we still believe the Bible? A prophetic perspective.<i><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">In this essay, I consider the trustworthiness of the Bible from a prophetic angle. Although Biblical Criticism scholars often reject the very notion of "prophecy", in my view prophecy is, in fact, one of the testable aspects of the Biblical claim to being divinely inspired. So, how strong is this kind of evidence? I discuss the messianic prophecies as well as other remarkable prophecies. I also develop good principles for judging prophetic material. What does that say about prophecies concerning the future?</span></i><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">The Bible is a many-faceted book. One of the most important characteristics of the Bible is the many oracles and prophecies that we find therein. In our scientific age, people are in general sceptical about all things supernatural, including prophecy, insofar as this refers to some kind of superhuman knowledge about future events. To the secular mind, it does not make sense that anyone can know the future. As such, some scholars from the Biblical Criticism tradition have found ways to discredit the Biblical idea of prophecy. The question is: Are they right? Is there really something called prophecy?</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">About one-third of the Bible consists of prophetic writings. This prophetic dimension of the Bible is actually extremely important in deciding what kind of book the Bible is. Although the Bible includes many historical narratives which tell about God's involvement in history, those stories cannot in themselves provide evidence that the Bible is what it claims to be, namely a divinely inspired book. Insofar as their truth can be established, they can at most show that the Biblical witnesses gave a trustworthy account of historical events (see parts 1, 2, 3 of this series for a detailed discussion thereof [1, 2, 3]). It is the prophetic aspect which is in the final instance the most important measure of the Biblical claim that it is no human book but a divinely inspired work - and contains God's message for humankind.</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">So, there is a lot at stake when it comes to Biblical prophecy. If we can show that the Biblical prophecies had indeed been fulfilled, then this goes a long way to establishing that the Bible is indeed what it says. Prophecy is one of the aspects of the Bible (see also the Biblical worldview [4]) which may provide scientifically measurable "evidence" for the existence of God insofar as the true fulfilment of prophecy goes beyond the possibility of scientific explanation and hinges on the Biblical claim that God knows the future and has through the ages revealed that to his prophets as we read: "I am the LORD: that is my name... new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them" (Is. 42:8-9).</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">The question therefore arises: Can we believe the Bible insofar as its prophetic claims are concerned? On the one hand, many Biblical Criticism scholars reject the notion of true prophecy (it does not fit into the "scientific" study of the Bible). On the other hand, we find that fundamentalist Christians often wrongly announce some date in which some prophecy such as the return of Jesus Christ would happen. This also discredits the notion of prophecy. Are there enough evidence to support the notion of true prophecy?</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">The problem with prophecy is that it is often very difficult to prove that the relevant events did, in fact, happen after the prophecy was given and was not retrospectively so named (this is due to our angle on history - living so long after the relevant events). As such, there are many Biblical prophecies which cannot be shown to be true in this sense. There are, however, some prophecies where we know that the related events do, in fact, came later. In that case, other considerations come into play: there may be various versions as well as interpretations of the prophetic texts where only one is consistent with an outcome that may be regarded as the fulfilment of the prophecy. As such, an evaluation of the evidence for and against the true fulfilment of prophecy is no easy task.</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">In this essay, I consider the typical arguments that Biblical Criticism scholars bring against Biblical prophecy. I discuss the problem in evaluating whether some prophecy can be shown to have indeed been fulfilled. I also discuss the problem of the variety of possible interpretation of a book such as Revelation. I establish good principles for judging prophetic material. I show that we do have good examples of Biblical prophecy that had been remarkably fulfilled. In the final instance, I also consider those prophecies which concern future events.</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <b><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Biblical Criticism and prophecy</span></b><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">In Biblical Criticism, the aim is to study the Bible from a scientific perspective. The aim is to clear the text of all unhistorical data - of everything that scholars from a scientific point of view assume cannot have happened. From this angle, the ability to "predict" the future is obviously not possible in any scientific sense. So, when it comes to the Biblical prophets, such scholars tried to <span style="font-style: normal;">reconstruct the </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Sitz im Leben</i></span><span lang="en-US"> ("setting in life") in which the prophet operated – this is the historical context in which he presented his message within the social circumstances of the time. For these scholars, it is the ethical dimension of the prophet's message which is of special importance. </span>The predictive aspect was considered as secondary – at most, it could have included some vague "predictions" which are not to be taken seriously because it would most probably be wrong.</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span> <span lang="en-US">What about bold statements about the fulfilment of prophecy found in the Biblical text? In their view, this should be interpreted either as </span><span lang="en-US"><i>vaticinia ex eventu</i></span><span lang="en-US"> (foretelling after the event) or that the author created fictional events to give the impression that some prophecy was fulfilled (some mention, for example, events from the life of Jesus in this regard [5]). So, when there are two options for reading the text which cannot be decided by independent means, namely that the prophecy was given beforehand or was retrospectively so interpreted, these scholars always assert the second option. A good example is the dating of the gospels later than 70 AD to allow for some knowledge by the authors about the Roman attack on Jerusalem - if the texts were written earlier it implies that this event was correctly foreseen by Jesus, which such scholars reject. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span> <span lang="en-US">One may ask: Is this good methodological practice? In this approach, the possibility of divine intervention in human affairs is excluded in principle. Although scholars can obviously not exclude the possibility that the prophetic interpretation in the text postdates the events mentioned therein, excluding the alternative as a matter of dogmatic belief pre-empts the outcome of independent research. Sometimes this even goes directly against the available evidence. In the case of Jesus's prophecy about the fall of Jerusalem found in the gospels, we actually have good reasons to think that it is a true prophecy. </span></span><br />
<span lang="en-US" style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">We can establish this from the most logical date when the Acts of the Apostles was written - which was by the same author who previously wrote the Gospel of St. Luke in which we find the prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem (see Acts 1:1). Now,</span> the story told in Acts stops when St. Paul had been in Rome for three years, which was in 62 AD. If there was more to say - such as what eventually happened to St. Paul in Rome etc. - then the author would surely have done so. This means that the Gospel of St. Luke could be dated before that (it was written first) - probably to 58 AD - which is well before the Romans captured Jerusalem in 70 AD. This is consistent with the author using the first person "I" (and "we") in the second part of Acts in accordance with the tradition that the St. Luke who wrote the book is the very same Luke who joined St. Paul on his missionary journeys.</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span lang="en-US" style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Biblical Criticism scholars, in fact, presuppose what they eventually find! In presupposing that true prophecy is impossible (as well as all supernatural intervention in history), the only possible explanation acceptable to them is the one of natural science. In this way, they merely find what they set out to find! They never seriously consider the alternative possibility that there are more to this world than natural science. So, they reduce religious studies to a secular science without any consideration for the alternative. This is an obviously bad methodology in which Biblical studies is reduced to a secular science even though those "scientists" do not have the scientific means in the discipline to in any sensible way evaluate those claims. They merely assume them to be wrong! </span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span> <span lang="en-US">This is also bad hermeneutics! It is the kind of hermeneutics which believes that the contemporary scholars are - in contrast with the "primitive" people who wrote the texts - the only ones who have a truly scientific and "objective" view on the world from which the texts originated. Not only is this claim false (there is no "objective" angle on history [6]), it also shows an astonishing disrespect for the Other in the context of the dialogue taking place in hermeneutics. </span><span lang="en-US">To quote </span><span style="font-style: normal;">Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932), who greatly influenced this discipline</span><span style="font-style: normal;">: "Following our modern historical world-view, truly not an imaginary construct but based on the observation of facts, we consider the other view entirely impossible" [7].</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Using the insights of the great philosopher of hermeneutics, Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002), we can view our interaction with these texts as a conversation in which readers from our generation are in conversation with the authors of those texts (and with many others who have already throughout the ages participated in this conversation). What happens in the one-sided conversation which Biblical Criticism scholars have with those ancient authors, is that the one participant in the dialogue ignores the views of the others as being totally irrelevant to their our fixed opinions! They arrogantly believe that they know it all and that the other persons in the conversation are not worth listening to. What they should keep in mind that the whole modernist philosophical approach used to establish the foundations of the discipline has since been fundamentally discredited [6] - which should caution any scholar to be humble in their approach to these issues. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Gadamer writes that such an approach to hermeneutics</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> "destroys the true meaning of this tradition" [8]. The point is that, although contemporary scholars may not believe in true prophecy, those authors obviously did! They believed that </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">the oracles were God-given and this influenced their whole perspective on life. </span><i>Once this aspect is removed, we do not arrive at some “objective” point of view – we arrive at a reductive view with no correspondence to the historical situation</i><span style="font-family: inherit;">. The fact is that they held those beliefs. The prophet, as well as those who listened to him, believed that these oracles came from God. This was part of their worldview; it determined their whole concept of life and the place of major (especially catastrophic) events therein. This is the historical situation! [9]</span></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">To reduce the prophetic message to a mere ethical message and prophecy to mere poetry is not only reductionist – it creates a new idea about that reality which is totally divorced from the true historical reality which existed in the context of the Hebrew prophetic tradition. It forces a certain rational view, typical of the modernist perspective, onto Biblical times without any concern for the views of the people who lived during that period. It gives the false impression that this is an “objective” view – the only one that is valid (so typical of the colonial spirit of modernism) – whereas it is, in fact, a total distortion of the real situation. Without doing so consciously, these scholars force their own paradigm onto the text which totally overshadows the voices therein, namely those of the author and the tradition from which the authors came. If we want to know something about the real situation, we have to listen to the voices present in the text and allow them to tell us something about their world. We have to be open to their truth - especially since we cannot prove them to be wrong!</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><b>Messianic prophecy?</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;">There are, however, also prophecies which had been given long before the time when the events associated with their fulfilment took place. A good example of this is the messianic prophecies which are usually taken by Christians as being fulfilled in the life and person of Jesus Christ. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;">There are many events from the life of Jesus which the Biblical authors understood in terms of the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy. We often find that the authors of the gospels mention that such or such an event was in accordance with the sayings of one of the prophets. The question is whether there is any value in the assessment by those Biblical authors that the Biblical passages which they refer to were indeed real prophecies? Biblical Criticism scholars are of the opinion that the "messianic allusions" in the four gospels are based on later interpretations. In their view, the passages were wrongly interpreted by the early Church and should not be understood in that way. This scholarly assessment is the reason why we find that all capital letters previously used to mark references to the Messiah in typical messianic prophecies had been dropped in some modern translations of those passages such as in Isaiah 53.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;">Why would one assert that the authors of the gospels held wrong interpretations of typical messianic passages? The main reason for this assessment is that these scholars assert that those passages are not predictions made with the Messiah in mind. Now, this shows a remarkable disconnect with the longstanding Hebrew tradition of understanding prophecy. We read, for example, in 2 Peter 1:19-21: "no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation [i.e. his predictions]. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but holy men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit". True prophecy is not based on the prophet's own interpretation of events and his own ideas about the future but was believed to have been supernaturally given through the inspiration of the Spirit of God [10]. The intentions of the prophet, therefore, play no role in prophecy!</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;">According to Hebrew tradition, the prophet often did not even know that he or she was speaking of the Messiah - for the simple reason that the Spirit of God inspired them in a way which they themselves did not understand. The prophet often did not realise that he was speaking about events pertaining to the distant future. This is the Hebrew understanding of prophecy in contrast with the modern scholarly understanding which confuses prophecy with prediction and forces this interpretation onto the text. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;">As such, some messianic prophecies originally concerned the king or the people of Israel but was interpreted as having reference to the Messiah (for example, </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Hos. 11:1 and Matt. 2:15; Ps. 2:9 and Rev. 2:27).</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> The reason for such messianic interpretations was often that the poetic language used had undertones which suggest that there was more to it than that which seems to have been said [11]. One finds, for example, in Psalm 110 that the author prophecises that God's anointed would be a king, who sits on Yahweh's "right hand", as well as a priest "forever". </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">So, how can we establish what is true prophecy and what not? When would it be that the New Testament author is merely taking Scriptural passages that seem to fit the events to assert his point? The answer is actually quite simple. Their interpretation of such passages did not happen in a vacuum - there was a well-established Hebrew tradition in which certain passages were marked as "messianic". The scholar Alfred Edersheim, who studied this issue extensively, showed that there were 456 separate Old Testament passages which the rabbinic scholars of the time interpreted as "messianic" [12] - which is miles away from the Biblical Criticism view that only a few passages can be so taken (Is. 7:10-17; 8:23-9:6; 11:1-9; Zech. 9:9; Mic. 5:1-4). </span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;">Edersheim wrote: "A careful perusal of their [the Rabbi's] Scripture quotations shows that the main postulates of the New Testament concerning the Messiah are fully supported by Rabbinic statements" [12]. And this is the important point: the passages were so understood before Jesus arrived on the scene and can, therefore, be understood as consistent with the messianic expectations of the people of Israel. To try and reinterpret the idea of prophecy in such a way that typical messianic prophecies are disqualified seems to be a weak effort to overcome the substantial evidence that such prophecy was overwhelmingly fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;">There are, however, some Biblical prophetic passages which do not seem to support the meaning given to them by the authors of the gospels. A well-known one is</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> the prophecy of Isaiah about the virgin who shall conceive and bear a son, named Emmanuel (Is. 7:14). How could the Biblical authors be so uninformed that they thought that the Hebrew word </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">“almâh” (veiled) means "virgin" whereas it actually means "young maiden". The reason is, again, quite simple: They understood the word exactly as the translators of the Septuagint understood it when they translated the Tanakh in the third to second centuries BC, namely as meaning "virgin". It seems that the alternative interpretation developed later from the Jewish reaction against Christianity! </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Too many interpretations of one passage?</b></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">One of the problems with prophecy, and especially such prophecies as those in the Book of Revelation, is that there are so many different interpretations thereof. Biblical Criticism scholars often assert that St. John's visions as described in that book are not even prophecy at all but merely adheres to the apocalyptic genre of the time in which visions and symbols are used by the authors as a literary device. This, however, seems to go against an explicit statement in the text to the contrary, namely that the book is about "things to come" (Rev. 1:1, 19). The difference is between taking the book as the product of the imagination of the author or as containing true God-given visions as the author asserts [13]. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;">Now, it is true that there are at least four interpretations of Revelation. The Preterists take the book as referring to past events from the period before the book was written (especially 70 AD). The Historists believe that the events described are those major events which impacted Middle Eastern history since the time of the writing of the book until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Idealists/Allegoricalists read the book as symbols pertaining to the ongoing struggle between Good and Evil and sees no prophecy in the book. The Futurists believe that the main part of the book concerns future events.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">These are indeed very divergent views about the meaning of the book. Does that mean that one should discard it as not containing true prophecy? The fact that there are various interpretations of the book does not necessarily mean that it should not be taken as prophecy given the opposite claim made at the beginning of the book (Rev. 1:1, 19). When we allow for the possibility that it might be true prophecy, then one might suggest that we take the Old Testament prophecies which the Biblical authors took as referring to Jesus as the point of departure in interpreting those of Revelation for the simple reason that the book stands within the same Judeo-Christian tradition. In the very same way that the particular details in those Old Testament prophecies (such as those in the Book of Daniel) were important, the same would apply to the Book of Revelation where one finds similar details. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;">When we allow that the Book of Revelation contains true prophecies - in spite of the Biblical Criticism claim that no such prophecy exists (as discussed above) - then one immediately allows that they might find an exact fulfilment just as the other prophecies regarding Jesus were interpreted (even if one holds another view). This means that one allows for the possibility that Jesus was, in fact, the Messiah and would one day return during the Second Coming. And then, it seems very likely that his Second Coming would be a real event just like his first appearance (and not merely an invisible event as some maintain regarding the events of 70 AD). In the final instance, this all hinges on the question whether God did, in fact, inspire the prophets and whether Jesus Christ was, in fact, the long-awaited Jewish Messiah? If this possibility is allowed (which cannot be excluded since so many prophecies have indeed been fulfilled in his person), then other prophecies about future events preceding Jesus's Second Coming might also eventually be fulfilled.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;">I sometimes get the feeling that one of the reasons why some interpreters are careful to avoid accentuating any details in the Book of Revelation - and stay with vague comments within a symbolic framework - is that they fear that they may be wrong. Now, this is indeed a problem that there are interpreters who make proud pronouncements which consequently turn out to be wrong. This should be a serious warning to be cautious. But is there no other way in which we may allow such details into our interpretation? I would like to suggest that scholars should develop eschatological models (similar to the theoretical models used in science) which can then be tested in the progress of time (more about that below). In this way, our interpretation of the details of the prophecy is not asserted as facts about future events but merely as a sensible reconstruction and integration of the details in prophetic passages. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;"><b>Principles for prophetic judgment</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> I suggest that any open-minded reader would allow for the possibility that real prophecy exists - even if they are inclined to think that the opposite is true. In that case, we may ask how one would decide what counts as real prophecy. In my view, the following principles are important:</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">1) Good hermeneutics requires that we engage with the texts with respect for the view of the author and the tradition from which s/he originated and not immediately reject his/her view out of hand because of our preconceived views about the world. In the same way that the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) introduced respect as the basis for our moral behaviour, Gadamer introduced it in the context of the dialogue which takes place in all interpretation. Even when we disagree, we should value the point of view of the Other. Even though we might think his position to be nonsensical, we should remember that we do not have an objective view on the world and it is always possible that we are actually wrong in our assessment (as happened regarding the modernism of the Biblical Criticism of the early twentieth century [6]). As such, we must not only allow for the possible existence of true prophecy but also for other interpretations of prophetic passages than our own.</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">2) Biblical prophecy stands within a long tradition in which the Biblical text had been read in a certain way. The philosophers Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) and Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) taught us that we all belong to a paradigm or cultural setting which forms our minds in a particular way. We are people of our time - just as the Biblical authors were of theirs. Today with the emergence of mass media it is possible to change culture quite rapidly - but that does not apply to the ancient world of old Israel. Their culture and tradition stayed the same even in the context of the early Christian Church which evolved from their midst. As such, we should acknowledge their prophetic tradition not only insofar as the texts are concerned but also insofar as their interpretation of those texts is concerned. Our modern interpretation of their texts cannot be better than their own for the simple reason that we are very much removed from their interpretive tradition.</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">What is also important is to understand that the prophecies in the New Testament which concerns the Second Coming of Jesus Christ stand in the very same prophetic tradition as those which concerned his first appearance. As such, we should remember that the very same people who took the Old Testament prophecies in a literal sense as being fulfilled in Jesus Christ also expected that the prophecies concerning his Second Coming would be fulfilled in such a manner. This suggests that the <span style="font-family: inherit;">Idealists/Allegoricalists' attempt to find some "deeper meaning" than the obvious one (say, of the period of "42 months" (3 1/2 years) mentioned in Revelation) is not consistent with the prophetic tradition from which those texts originated. Those people did not have any knowledge of that very Greek approach at that early period [14]. We should allow that the details of the prophecies might, in fact, be literally fulfilled even when the text includes metaphors and symbols.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> 3) All prophecies are applied to world events. This application might refer to events in the distant past or the future. The process in which this application is done is, however, also important. So often we find that interpreters see something happening in the world which they then on an <i>ad hoc</i> basis relate to prophecies which they think could be relevant to those events. This is, however, not good hermeneutic practice. We should develop good eschatological models pertaining to future prophecy and only then apply them to world events in a systematic way - very much in the same way that we apply theoretical models in science to empirical data. In this way, the eschatological model is known beforehand and the fulfilment thereof can be better evaluated. This means that scholars do not have to be afraid to engage in a more substantial manner with prophecies about the "future". This, however, does not mean that they have to accept everything that had become associated with the Futurists (especially regarding the Rapture [15]).</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <b><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Re-reading the Bible</span></b><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">We can now consider some Biblical prophecies in more detail. Although there are many Biblical prophecies which the Biblical authors believed (and believers in general believe) to have been fulfilled, I only discuss ones of which the fulfilment can be shown to have happened sometime after the prophecy was given. I discuss two very remarkable such prophecies.</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">The first is the well-known prophecy of Jeremiah that Jerusalem would be given in the hands of the Babylonians for a period of seventy years (Jer. 25:11-12). We know that this period was understood by the exiles to have commenced when the Neo-Babylonian king <span style="font-family: inherit;">Nebuchadnezzar first conquered Jerusalem in 605 BC which was also when Daniel and his friends are said to have gone into exile to Babylon (see Dan. 9:1, 10; </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">the city was taken again in 597 BC and 587 BC)</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">. The Neo-Babylonian rule came to an end when the Persians con</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">quered Babylon in 539 BC. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">According to the Book of Daniel, the first ruler of the Persians was King Darius, "of the seed of the Medes", in whose first year the prophet Daniel is said to have received one of his prophecies (</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Dan. 9:1-2; which would have been in about 538 BC). </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Although the historicity of this Darius is disputed, there is no good reason to doubt that such a person lived (archaeological data has certain limits - see [16]). After him came the well-known Cyrus, who allowed Israel to return to their homeland in the first year of his reign in Babylon (Ezra 1:1). If we assume that Darius ruled for two years (Dan. 9:1-2 seems to imply a reign of more than one year), then Cyrus gave his command in about 536 BC. When we allow for prophetic reckoning (a prophetic year was considered to be 360 years; </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">see Rev. 11:1-2</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">), then the prophecy of Jeremiah may be considered to have been remarkably fulfilled. The period from 605 BC to 536 BC is exactly 70 prophetic years.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Another remarkable prophecy is the one attributed to Daniel in the above-mentioned passage (Dan. 9:20-27). In this case, we read about a period of 70 "weeks" of years, which is 70 x 7 = 490 years, which is in turn subdivided into two periods of 69 "weeks" of years (483 years) and the final period of one "week" (7 years) [17]. The first 69 "weeks" of years is our present concern. According to the prophecy, it would commence with the command to rebuild the city of Jerusalem and end just before the "anointed one" (Messiah) would be "cut off" (i.e. dies). Although scholars differ in their interpretation of the meaning of the two events mentioned, there is a general consensus that the period of 69 "weeks" of years refers to the time in between them (for a discussion of all the views, see [18]).</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i> <i>The only command that was ever given to rebuild the city of Jerusalem</i><span style="font-family: inherit;">, was the one given in the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of the Persian king Artaxerxes Longimanus (Neh. 2:5). This was in the year 445 BC (Artaxerxes's rule is calculated from the death of his father Xerxes in July 465 BC [19]). The three previous commands that were given by Persian rulers, were all concerned with the building of the temple – not the city of Jerusalem (Ezra 1:2-4; 5:13; 6:3-14; 7:12-26). When we take this date as the starting point for the 69 "weeks" of years or 483 years, then the period came to an end during the time of Jesus's ministry on earth, which would be consistent with him being the Messiah. This reading is also consistent with the general expectation that the Jewish Messiah would appear in the time when Jesus did </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">(Lu. 2:26; 3:15; Joh. 1:19, 20)</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> - which was most probably based on this very prophecy of Daniel.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">The period of 69 weeks of years would come to an end when Messiah, a Prince, appears - which is just before he would be "cut off" [20]. Given that the prophecy seems to have reference to Jesus, we might ask: To which event during the earthly ministry of Jesus does the prophecy refer? Or to put it differently: when did Jesus present himself as Messiah and King (Prince) </span>to<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"> Israel? </span><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">This clearly happened when Jesus rode upon the donkey into Jerusalem in accordance with the prophecy of Zechariah: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy </span><i style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">King</i><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"> cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass" (Zech. 9:9). When that happened, the crowd cried out: "Hosanna, Blessed is the </span><i style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">King of Israel</i><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"> that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Joh. 12:13).</span><br />
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><img alt="Entry into Jerusalem, Giotto" height="376" src="http://www.jesus-story.net/images/entry-into-jerusalem_Giotto.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">The Entry into Jerusalem by Giotto (1305 AD)</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">From the details in the Gospel of St. Luke, we know that John the Baptist started his ministry in the fifteenth year of Cesar Tiberius (Luk. 3:1-3). The fifteenth year of Tiberius commenced on 19 August 28 AD. Jesus was therefore baptized in the autumn of 28 AD. This means that he was crucified three-and-a-half years later in the year 32 AD [19]. <i>The year 32 AD is also the only year in which the calendar agrees with the events of that time.</i> Jesus would, therefore, have entered Jerusalem on the donkey on the Sunday before the crucifixion in the year 32 AD (see Joh. 12:1, 12).</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">This period of 69 weeks of years, i.e. 483 years, that is from 445 BC to 32 AD, ends long after the latest possible date that the text could have been written (in about 164 BC as is accepted in Biblical Criticism circles). This means that a considerable part of the prophecy refers to events that happened long after the text was written (by the latest estimates). Traditional Christians believe that the prophecy dates much earlier, namely to the time mentioned in the Book of Daniel (538 BC; right at the beginning of the Persian rule over Babylon). Irrespective of the position taken, <i>the 483 years obviously ends long after the latest accepted date for the writing of the book</i>. One can also not think that Jesus could have calculated the date to superficially "fulfil" the prophecy because the kind of mathematics necessary to do the calculations was not available at that time.</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">When we do the calculations, we find that the period between these events in 445 BC and 32 AD is exactly 173880 days (for a detailed discussion, see [21]). Again, when we use prophetic years (360 days in the year; <span style="font-family: inherit;">see Rev. 11:1-2)</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">, then we find that the period is</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> precisely 69 prophetic years – even to the exact day! One cannot but to say that this is truly astounding. This is one of those cases where we have a prophecy with sufficient details to be tested rigorously as well as the tools to do that test. However one sees this, one cannot but to at the very least accept that this is an astonishing coincidence. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Prophecies about the future</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">This brings us to the future. As we have good reasons to think that Biblical prophecy has been accurately fulfilled in the past (and I do not know about any such prophecy that was, in fact, wrong), we may think that the same would happen in the future. In this case, however, I would like to merely present an eschatological model which take another prophecy in the Book of Daniel as the point of departure, namely the one in Daniel 7 (for a more detailed exploration of this model, see [22]). </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">In this prophecy, all the different empires which would rule over the people of Israel since the time of </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Nebuchadnezzar until the time of judgment is depicted as symbolic beasts. At the time of judgment, we read that </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">"one like the Son of man comes with the clouds of heaven", who would receive dominion, glory and everlasting kingship over all the earth (Dan. 7:13-14). Jesus applied this prophecy to his Second Coming, saying that </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">"the Son of man [would] come in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Matt. 24:30). </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">When we take this prophecy in the Book of Daniel seriously, we</span><i> might view it as describing events throughout history to the Second Coming</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> (which has obviously not yet arrived; it would not happen in secret but with "great power and glory").</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">What is further remarkable about this prophecy, is that it has a twin: there is another prophecy in the Book of Daniel which agrees on each point with this one, even though other symbols are used (in Daniel 2). In the vision of the prophet described in chapter 7, various beasts rose from the sea. In Nebuchadnezzar's dream in chapter 2, a metal statue is depicted. The four beasts (lion, bear, leopard and a dreadful and terrible beast that was exceedingly strong with great iron teeth) correspond with the four metals from which the statue was made (gold, silver, brass, iron). In both cases, the last one is depicted as stronger than all the others, as a beast/metal which "brake in pieces" (Dan. 7:7; 2:40) and devour/subdue. The great beast had ten horns whereas the statue had ten toes. The "Son of Man" who came with the clouds of heaven at the time of the great judgment agrees with the rock which broke the statue in pieces and filled the earth. Both prophecies mention the "everlasting kingdom" that would follow.</span></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div>
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">The largest part of the prophecy has been remarkably fulfilled if we take the symbols in the following manner (which is by far the most reasonable explanation - for a detailed discussion of all the different views, see [23]): the lion/gold refers to the Neo-Babylonian Empire (<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">626-539 BC)</span>; the bear/silver refers to the Persian Empire<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> (550-330 BC)</span>; the leopard/brass refers to the Greek Empire (of Alexander the Great<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">; 356-323 BC)</span> which was divided into four in the time after his death<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> (323-63 BC)</span> in agreement with the four heads of the leopard; the great and terrible beast or iron which is depicted as stronger than all the others refers to the Roman Empire (27 BC- 476 AD) which was divided into two in agreement with the two legs of iron.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">One may suggest that the two feet (made of iron mixed with clay) which came after the two iron legs but preceded the ten toes (made of the same), refer to the two empires which came in the place of the eastern and western parts into which the old Roman Empire was divided, namely the Byzantine Empire (306-1460 AD) in the east and the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806 AD) in the west. These two empires <span style="font-family: inherit;">included the core areas of the two parts of the old Roman Empire. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">In my view, the iron refers to the Latins (Romans) and the clay to the Germanic peoples who lived (for the most part) to the north of the Roman Empire but later settled within its boundaries. Both of these were included in these later empires, whose geographical areas changed a lot over the duration of their existence. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">The ten horns/toes would refer to an empire that comes after these empires (the feet) but which has not yet appeared [23]. These are "ten kings" who will rise from the (geographical area of the) old Roman Empire (Dan. 7:24) to rule over a single end-time empire (Dan. 2:42). After that an eleventh horn appeared from between the ten other horns (in Dan. 7) and grew greater than them; this depicts a great Antichristian figure [24] who would persecute the saints for 3 1/2 years (Dan. 7:25) in the time directly before the coming of the Son of man with the clouds of heaven at the time of the great judgment (Dan. 7:13-28).</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">This interpretation may be refined by including other relevant prophecies which mention these same things (for example, in the Book of Revelation). This is not the place to do that (see [22]). What this model proposes, is that a final antichristian empire would rise from the ashes of the old Roman Empire. In the end of times, a great empire would rise in the geographical area of the old Roman Empire over which "ten kings" would rule - which may refer to some kind of "council of ten" (we can only speculate) - and which would eventually hand over their power to the final Antichrist [25].</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">One may suggest that the current efforts to integrate the European Union may eventually lead to the establishment of such an empire. <span style="font-family: inherit;">If the democratic EU evolves into such an empire, we would see history repeating itself since the old Roman Empire also evolved out of the Roman Republic. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">I</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">t is indeed quite amazing that the EU has, in fact, been rising in the exact geographical area where the prophecy predicts that the end-time empire of the final Antichrist will appear. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">This means that we must consider developments in the EU in this light which would eventually show if this model is correct. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">The slow but steady process through which the EU has become ever more centralised and more powerful is consistent with this interpretation of the prophecy - but it is obviously still very far from the empire which one would expect in accordance with the prophecy. As such, <span style="font-family: inherit;">I think that we may still have to wait a very long time before the world situation develops in accordance with the prophetic picture described above.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">If the remarkable correspondence between this prophecy and world history (as discussed above) is for real (one can never exclude the possibility of an astounding coincidence!), then it seems very likely that the future would also unfold as foretold in the prophecy. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <b><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Conclusion</span></b><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div lang="en-US" style="font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">In this essay, I discuss the Bible from a prophetic angle. Are the oracles and prophecies in the Bible for real? Did God really inspire the prophets in such a way that the things which they wrote have reference to future events? I argue that we have good reasons to accept that true prophecy exists. I also argue that we should take statements about prophecy in the Bible serious. We should at the very least be open to the prospect that such prophecies had been fulfilled in ancient times exactly as the authors assert - we have no good reasons to distrust their judgment! </span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;">I also discussed some prophecies that had been remarkably fulfilled, such as the one of Jeremiah about the 70 years of exile or the one of Daniel about the 70 "weeks" of years. The fact that Israel did, in fact, went back from Babylon 70 years after Nebukadnezar first took the city and that Jesus did, in fact, revealed himself in Jerusalem as the Messiah exactly 483 years after the royal command to rebuild the city of Jerusalem - exactly as foretold - should be good reasons to believe that these prophecies (and more generally, the Bible) were inspired by God. Even if we think of some reason to doubt this, I think anyone would have to admit that it is an astounding coincidence that one is able to find such a precise fulfilment in the first place! Finding even one such an extraordinary "black swan" (and I discussed a few) is good enough to show that they do indeed exist.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;">In my view, the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible provide strong evidence that Jesus is indeed the Messiah and that he would, therefore, one day return as foretold. In this case, we also have prophecies about future events that would precede his Second Coming. Again, it seems to me very remarkable that we can, in fact, fit the prophecy of Daniel about the various world empires (Dan. 7) so beautifully with world history. Within this framework, the next empire which would arise would be the final world empire (corresponding to the ten horns/toes). </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span> <span style="font-size: small;">As such, it is again amazing that we do, in fact, find that a great political power is rising in the exact geographical area (of the old Roman Empire and the two succeeding empires) where such an empire is expected and also in the right timescale (about 150 years after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire). The question is: Will the EU brake apart or will it continue to grow geographically and in power? Although we cannot assert that the second outcome will happen - we are merely working with an eschatological model - this would definitely be a strong indication that we are seeing the fulfilment of true prophecy. It seems to me that one would be extremely foolish to reject prophecy and the God who inspire without at least careful consideration.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[1] </span><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/04/part-1-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Part 1. Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective.</a></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">[2] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/03/part-2-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">Part 2. Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective.</a></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">[3] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2018/04/part-3-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">Part 3. Can we still believe the Bible? A scientific perspective.</a></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">[4] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/science-and-metaphysics-in-search-of.html" target="_blank">Science and metaphysics: In search of Russell's teapot.</a></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">[5] These are mostly events which cannot be independently verified. But this implies an extreme form of scepticism which is not consistent with good hermeneutics.</span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">[6] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/06/a-critique-of-biblical-criticism-as.html" target="_blank">A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline</a></span></div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">[7] Gunkel, Hermann. 1901. Genesis. Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht.</span></div>
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">[8] Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1994. <i>Truth and Method</i> (translation revised by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, second revised ed.). New York: Crossroad.</span><br />
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">[9] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/04/bible-prophecy-predicting-distant-future.html" target="_blank">Bible prophecy: predicting the distant future? </a></span></div>
<div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[10] One of the good examples of prophecy which was never previously understood in a particular way until the time of its fulfilment, is those passages which concern God's inclusion of the heathen in his plan. St. Paul writes: <span style="font-family: inherit;">“the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets” (Rom. 16:25, 26; see also 11 Pet. 1:19-21).</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[11] We find something similar in so-called "prophetic perspective", also called "mountain peaks of prophecy", where various events happening some time apart are believed to have been included in the same prophecy. The Prophetic Discours is an example, where the reference to the capture of Jerusalem by the heathen is interpreted as referring to both the events of 70 AD when the Romans took the city as well as future events in the time of the Antichrist.</span></div>
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[12] Edersheim, Alfred. <i>Prophecy and History in Relation to the Messiah</i> (Warburton Lectures for 1880-1884, 1885).</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">[13] </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">The </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">radical scepticism of </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Biblical Criticism comes down to saying that scholars should accept as their point of departure that the Biblical authors, in general, gave false testimonies and impressions, i.e. they lied. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">This radical scepticism goes back to the positivist roots of the discipline which asserted that nothing that is not supported by evidence can be believed. This philosophical approach has since been discredited and no philosopher of science worth the name takes it seriously. We know today that archaeology is not an empirical science and that not finding evidence can never be taken as proof of no evidence [15]. In contrast, </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">the Biblical authors such as St. Paul claim that "holy men of God" wrote the texts and that their testimony is true and trustworthy. </span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[14] Pentecost, J. Dwight. 1981. Things to Come. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.</span><br />
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[15] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/09/the-rapture-different-views.html" target="_blank">The Rapture: The different views.</a></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[16] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/08/a-critique-of-archaeology-as-science.html" target="_blank">A Critique of Archaeology as a Science</a></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[17] The first period of 69 x 7 = 683 years are also subdivided into two periods of 7 and 62 weeks of years but that has no direct bearing on the discussion.</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">What about the final period of one week? According to this prophecy, the death of the "anointed one" (or: Messiah) would be followed by the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the sanctuary by "the people of the prince that shall come" (Dan. 9:26). This happened in 70 AD when the Romans captured the city (about 40 years after the crucifixion). The last week (7 years) is mentioned only after these events are referred to in the prophecy, which may imply that it follows sometime after that (for a detailed discussion, see [18]).</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Some interpreters are very sceptical of the "gap" between the first 69 weeks and the final week (of years) and are therefore even uneasy with the astounding fulfilment of the 69 weeks! The reason for this seems to me due to the connection between the final week (placed at the end of this era) and the dispensational view which take this week as a dispensation on its own (and so justifies a rapture of the church "before the final seven years"). This needs not be the case. The fact that these seven years concern the people of Israel does not necessitate a dispensation of its own. There is no conflict therein that some prophecies about Israel are fulfilled in the present era (dispensation, if you like). In fact, it seems strange that God would revert to some previous (or similar) dispensation in the process of his progressive revelation. For a detailed discussion on the issue (see [15, 18]). </span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[18] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/05/the-final-seven-years-different-views.html" target="_blank">The Final Seven Years: The different views</a></span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-style: normal;">
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[19] <span style="font-family: inherit;">Anderson, Robert. 1984. </span><i>The Coming Prince</i><span style="font-family: inherit;">. Michigan: Kregel.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[20] One might argue that there are other interpretations of this prophecy in which these details are understood differently. Even when that is accepted, it is still astonishing that any interpretation of the prophecy (at all!) could agree so precisely with the historical facts on the ground given the chances of that happening. The agreement with these facts suggests that this is, indeed, the correct interpretation.</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[21] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/04/a-very-remarkable-prophecy.html" target="_blank">A Very Remarkable Prophecy</a></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[22] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/10/when-can-second-coming-of-jesus-be.html" target="_blank">When can the Second Coming of Jesus be expected?</a></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[23] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/05/the-rise-of-final-world-empire.html" target="_blank">The Rise of the Final World Empire: The different views.</a></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[24] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/10/the-final-antichrist-different-views.html" target="_blank">The Final Antichrist: The different views.</a></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[25] In the Book of Revelation, we read that the rule of the "ten kings" is still in the future. They will rule together with the "beast" (who will persecute the saints for 3 1/2 years; Rev. 13:5-7) to whom they will give their power and against whom Jesus Christ will fight in the great battle (Rev. 17:12-14; 19:19, 20).</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">The author is a scientist-philosopher (PhD in Physics; M<span style="font-family: inherit;">A in philosophy</span>). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology.</span><br />
<br />
Part 1. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2014/04/part-1-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective</a><br />
Part 2. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2015/03/part-2-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective</a><br />
Part 3. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/04/part-3-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">Can we still believe the Bible? A scientific perspective</a><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div style="color: black; font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-11977470864605850952018-04-03T00:09:00.000-07:002019-07-02T04:58:28.733-07:00Part 3. Can we still believe the Bible? A scientific perspective<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">In this essay I consider the question: Can we still believe the Bible? from a scientific angle. This follows the previous essays in this series where I did the same from a hermeneutical (interpretive) and an archaeological perspective respectively. I engage with the problem of scientific evidence for the existence of God as well as many other related issues.</span></i><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">The Bible is an ancient book. It originated millennia ago within a prescientific age. As such, the Biblical perspective obviously reflects that ancient way of thinking about the world which is very different from the scientific one which goes back a mere 300 years. Does that mean that the Bible cannot say anything to us today? Does its ancient character disqualify the Bible from being taken seriously within our scientific age? These questions introduce an even more fundamental one: How does the prescientific nature of the Bible impacts on its truth? The Bible is, after all, a book that is concerned with "truth".</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">There are many scholars (from the Biblical Criticism tradition) who think that the prescientific character seriously undermines the validity of the Biblical narrative. They believe that its prescientific origins automatically means that the views presented are "primitive" and not compatible with our scientific understanding of the world. Some of them try to "rescue" some aspects such as the Jesus story (clinging to the truth about the resurrection) but others reject it as an ancient book that is not relevant to our present-day concerns. As such, they see an unbridgeable gap between the Biblical perspective and the scientific one.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Many conservative Christians also think in terms of such a gap but in their case, they reject the scientific perspective as being the untrustworthy one. Their thinking is moulded by the prescientific Biblical perspective which they read in scientific terms (in accordance with their contemporary education) as giving an "objective" perspective - without any concerns for the very different world from which the Biblical text originated. Obviously, the prescientific nature of the book has to be taken into account in our understanding and interpreting it. This, however, does not have to mean (as taken by Biblical Criticism scholars) that the Biblical truth is compromised. In fact, its ancient character may even strengthen the Biblical claim to the truth when it is understood on its own terms - for example, as a book written with integrity but from an observational (instead of scientific) perspective.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">One of the significant problems in this discussion is the popular understandings of science which are often not at all scientific but rather belong to a scientism view of the world. When science is taken as the "measure of all things" (to quote the American philosopher Wilfred Sellars (1912-1989)) then obviously the Bible cannot perform that function. When all things are measured in empirical terms, then obviously there cannot be any place for a world beyond our empirical reach. Many people - including scientists - adhere to such a perspective without even knowing that this is a metaphysical standpoint, not a scientific one!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">This deeply engrained scientism is reflected in the main reason given by atheists for not believing in God, namely that there is no direct empirical proof of His existence. Although this is (obviously) true, this perspective reflects a very basic misunderstanding about the nature of science. Once one understands the scope and limits of science (especially insofar as its empirical reach is concerned - which has been dramatically exposed within the context of quantum physics) then one knows that science is not in competition with faith.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">In this essay, I consider the question whether the prescientific nature of the Bible disqualifies this ancient book as a trustworthy source of information about the ancient world and discredits its message and claim to truth? I consider the role of observation in both the Biblical and scientific perspectives. In what sense is the Biblical perspective different from the scientific one? And what about the ancient worldview in which the Biblical authors were embedded? How does that relate to the scientific view of the world? I take a closer look at the scope and limits of science to determine whether good science is in conflict with the Biblical perspective and even whether science may, in fact, support the Biblical claim to the truth!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Science and the prescientific nature of the Bible</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">When we consider the Bible from a purely secular angle, it seems to be an ancient book like all such books which would never have been relevant to current debate if it was not a religious book (which takes centre stage in Judaeo-Christian religion with the Jews obviously only accepting the Tanakh which the Christians call Old Testament). This, however, reflects a preconceived dogmatic position, namely that the Biblical claim to be divinely inspired cannot in principle be true. As such, it goes against an honest and open search for the truth. The alternative is to at least consider the Biblical claim that it contains God's message to humankind.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">This Biblical claim is grounded on the testimonies of people (prophets and other authors) whom believers regard as true and trustworthy. These people testified about their experience of God who revealed himself in various ways to them: through an angel, vivid dreams, his Spirit and through Jesus Christ, the son of God. Their testimony concerns a very long tradition of oracles going back to those given to Abraham, the most important forefather of Israel, as well as Moses, their most important law-giver, and many other such prophets as well as the events associated with those oracles. As such, the message of God is presented as belonging to a certain historical context which includes even miraculous events such as those preceding the exodus and many others [1]. <i><b>The main claim is that all the testimonies included in the Bible are true because they were given with integrity (and are sanctioned by God who inspired the authors through his Spirit).</b></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">We read, for example, that St. Paul writes: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16). Regarding the prophets, we read in 2 Peter 1:19-21: "no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but holy men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit". The important point is that these were "holy men" of God whose testimony is trustworthy because they would not lie (especially within the context of a holy God who abhors all lying and misleading testimony (see Rev. 21:8)).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Now, even in our day and age witness testimony forms an integral part of our justice system. When enquiring about the true nature of events the court values the "true and trustworthy" testimony of eyewitnesses very high - exactly the kind of testimony that the Bible claims to present! I discuss this aspect (i.e. using the justice system as the point of departure in evaluating Biblical truth) when I considered the Bible from an archaeological angle [2]. In any good justice system, the truth is determined by both witness testimony as well as scientific data. When the testimonies are true, they would not be in conflict with scientific data even though both need interpretation (which may lead to perceived inconsistencies which are purely due to the manner of interpretation).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">All witness testimony happens within a certain context which does not belong to a pure scientific setting. The same is true for the Biblical testimony. Although the context of the Biblical authors was very different from our own and they regarded the world in very different terms than us, it is difficult to see how that undermines the truth of their testimony when we take that context into consideration when interpreting the Biblical text. All eyewitnesses have some kind of belief system which may differ radically from each other (and which may to some extent influence their thinking) but that does not in itself disqualify their testimony as long it is truthfully given. This means that we cannot discard the Biblical testimony purely because it originated within the ancient prescientific age.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Even though the Biblical testimonies include pronunciations and mention events which go beyond what natural science allows (i.e. in the case of prophecy and miracles) one cannot merely reject them out of hand as untrue - if the God whom they served really exists then He could obviously have done such things. One may, however, think that those witnesses may have been mistaken because they took purely natural things in a supernatural way. And we do, in fact, find that God is sometimes said to have used natural means to accomplish supernatural things (for example, the wind is said to have opened the path before the Israelites when they crossed the sea during the exodus). But that does not necessarily negate the miraculous aspect thereof as witnessed by the people of that time. We would, however, have to take a closer look at the way in which they engaged with the world through observation to determine if their experience has validity even today.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Science and observation</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">The most important insight which led to our scientific age concerns the role of the observer. Things are not always as they seem to be. Copernicus discovered that our observation of the sun going around the earth each day is in fact wrong - it is merely an illusion based on the rotation of the earth in its elliptical path around the sun. This is usually understood to mean that the geocentric view is wrong and the heliocentric one correct. Now, although this may be true on the larger scale of things, there is nothing wrong in taking both perspectives as valid <i>as long as the context of observation is taken into consideration.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">During the early part of the modern period (from the time of<span style="font-family: inherit;"> <span style="background-color: white;">René Descartes (1596-1650) until the first half of the twentieth century), many scientists (and ordinary people following their lead) took the heliocentric perspective in absolute terms (i.e. thinking that the sun is the centre of the universe). This coincides with the modern view that we can achieve absolute objective positions which is immune to different perspectives. Even though it was eventually recognized that the sun is merely the </span></span><span style="background-color: white;">center of our solar system but not of the universe, this absolutist </span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">"modernist" philosophical thinking gave birth in the early twentieth century to the </span></span>neo-Kantian and Logical Empiricist (Logical Positivist) schools of philosophical thought (which subsequently became discredited especially due to the findings of quantum physics - for a detailed discussion, see [3])). The validity of various perspectives was reinforced by <span style="background-color: white;">Einstein's theory of relativity, according to which we can always define some other valid framework relative to the one we are using. In the end, everything is relative to each other and we can never proceed beyond some kind of observational perspective. This does not undermine the accuracy of the scientific endeavour.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">The problem of observation is at the same time one of knowledge. How do we know that what we observe is indeed true knowledge? This is the problem tackled by the philosopher Immanuel Kant in his famous <i>Critique of Pure Reason</i> (also called the first <i>Critiqu</i>e; 1781, 1787). Kant followed Copernicus's lead and acknowledged that all human knowledge is always obtained from the standpoint of the observer. As such, two things are necessary for obtaining "objective" knowledge: concepts (universals) as well as empirical data (particulars) given in our senses. Furthermore, all knowledge involves a determinate judgement that the empirical data (the things that we observe) is consistent with the concepts (theoretical models) that we use. As long as we can obtain such judgments, we can assert that we have obtained "objective" knowledge. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Of particular importance to our present discussion, is the fact that this approach was developed <i>within the parameters of normal human experience. As such, it is generally valid</i> - but finds its systematic application in science. </span></span><span style="background-color: white;">In this way, Kant laid the theoretical groundwork for all mathematical science.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;">Although we can obtain "objective" knowledge, this knowledge is not singularly determined. O</span></span>ne may have data within certain contexts agreeing with simple models and data in other more complex situations agreeing with more sophisticated models (Kant nowhere says anything contrasting this). In this way, we may think of Newton’s theory as describing objective reality in classical contexts and Einstein’s theories as describing objective reality in relativistic contexts (at least insofar as the measurements are concerned). This reinforces the Kantian view that all knowledge is always defined in terms of the observer and always reflects a human perspective of the world. We can never obtain a "God's eye view" on things. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />This means that the perspective of the Biblical authors cannot be discounted merely because they belong to the prescientific age. All humans share the same kind of experience - and this includes humans of all ages. Their experience involves knowledge claims exactly on par with ours - even though they did not know about science and its aim to obtain such knowledge under controlled conditions. We can therefore not discount their experience only because it dates from the prescientific age! We have to say exactly why we reject the validity of their experience - and that cannot be due to a lack of integrity (see the previous section) or observational skills.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />There is, however, more to the Kantian position in the <i>Critique of Pure Reason</i>. This work does not only present the conditions for obtaining objective knowledge - it also shows the limits within which such knowledge can be obtained. We may be able to develop theoretical models which go far beyond experience and experiment (we use the causal connection between our senses and instruments to extend our empirical access to the world) but our empirical access is severely restricted by our human condition. All our empirically-acquired data belongs to those aspects of our world that can be so accessed - that is, <i>those aspects of our world that are measurable by our material instruments.</i> Those things which happen(ed) or exist beyond our temporal and spatial reach can never be so accessed. This includes things which are too complex (for example, an infinity of causally related connections) or which are by their very nature forever outside empirical reach (supersensible - such as the Big Bang or quantum states which are mathematically described in terms of a singularity or imaginary numbers (with no real component)).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">One of the interesting features of Kant's philosophy is that he allowed for the possibility of the existence of a supersensible realm within our world which is beyond the empirical reach of our experience and experiments. At that time, many philosophers and scientists thought that Kant merely did this to accommodate faith. In recent years, it had been shown that the conditions for the supersensible realm are satisfied in the quantum realm! [4] Quantum objects are "supersensible" (unmeasurable) and not presentable in proper space-time while being in their pre-measurement phase. As such, they are different from those that we encounter in our experiments - quantum objects adhere to superpositions of states which "collapse" to certain reduced modes that are observable in experiment.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">The only reason why scientists argue that quantum objects exist even though we cannot empirically access them is that they cause certain outcomes in our world. If they did not do this (and some don't), we would not even have known about their existence! So, the question is: how extensive is the quantum realm? How many kinds of objects are there that belong to that realm? What kind of existence is that which we do not have empirical access to?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Without trying to answer these questions, we can say the following: we as humans are severely constrained in our understanding of the world! <i>We have no hope that we will ever gain access to this other mode of existence because of the restricted nature of our human kind of sensibility.</i> Although we can think beyond that, and formulate various mathematical conceptions that apply to that kind of existence to the extent that we may encounter outcomes produced by such objects, we would never be able to empirically access them and understand them. We can say: A part of our world is beyond empirical reach. This is also the part where "dark" matter and "dark" energy resides.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">The fact that science is so severely restricted in its empirical reach leaves no doubt that it cannot be the measure of all things! There are some scientists who believe that one-day science will be the measure of all things but this is merely a belief which is doomed to fail given the restricted nature of our empirical reach! The important point is that science can only measure those things which are given as matter in space-time. Although we can manipulate quantum objects which are not in proper space-time but which can be realized in space-time, we have absolutely no idea what lies beyond our empirical reach! So, although science can provide a good description of the measurable world it cannot confirm or deny the existence of things that exist beyond that. It has no possible way, for example, to explore the existence of God empirically.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">One may argue that the scientific view of the world is still much, much better than the prescientific worldview. In fact, one may argue that the Biblical authors believed in things that are unscientific like angels, spirits, souls and so forth and that that had a major influence on their interpretation of the world. But Christians (and many others) believe in these same things today - and that does not disqualify them from giving trustworthy testimonies which accurately reflect their observation of events!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">When considering the validity of the Biblical perspective, one, however, has to confront the issue regarding the existence of angels, spirits and souls. Although it is true that these things do presently lie beyond the reach of science (and their existence cannot be confirmed) that obviously does not necessarily mean that they do not exist! The scientific view of the world does not exclude the possibility of their existence - it is the scientism view which takes current (!) science as the measure of all things which does that. This means that our scientific view of the world might be more in agreement with the ancient worldview that one might suspect. Although many scholars have asserted that the ancient worldview is "primitive" and in direct conflict with the scientific one, this judgment does, in fact, says more about their dogmatic position than reality.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Science and the ancient worldview</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">At this point, we may take a closer look at the ancient (Biblical) worldview to see how it relates to the scientific view of the world. One of the main features of that view is the distinction between the material world of observation and the invisible world which exists beyond that. We find this distinction all over the ancient world and even in Greek philosophy where Plato (and other ancient philosophers) made that distinction.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Insofar as the invisible world is concerned, the ancients found a way to make that "visible" within their world. They took the starry heavens of the night sky as reflecting the reality associated with the invisible world. In this regard, they observed that the rotation of the starry heaven around the earth (due to the earth's rotation; in the same way that the sun goes around the earth) creates the image of a large rotating cosmic egg on which all the stars are located. The top and bottom of this "egg" are located at the northern and southern "poles" of heaven respectively, in accordance with the projection of the earth's rotational axis to those points. This is where the idea of a cosmic egg found in many ancient cultures originated.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Now, this egg had been divided into three cosmic realms since ancient times (already in ancient Sumer). The middle region, which was identified with the "earth", was associated with the region of the sky between the solstice points (on the horizon). The four "corners" (or "pillars") of the "earth" were defined by the solstice and equinox points. To the north - that is "above" the "earth" - is the region which was identified with "heaven" and to the south - that is "underneath" the "earth" - is the underworld (Hell). Both these regions belong to the otherworld. These regions are brought together by the cosmic tree (the cosmic axis) which stretches through them all. The stars were identified with the gods associated with those regions (for a detailed discussion, see [5]). As such, we often find in the Biblical tradition that the angels (which replaced the "gods" of ancient times) were identified with stars or planets (Judg. 5:20; Job 38:7; Rev. 1:20 etc.).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Some scholars have interpreted this three-tiered picture of the world as a very "primitive" one. Now, it may not be part of our modern scientific view of the world but is nonetheless a very sophisticated worldview in which the movements of the starry heavens are reflected. It is only when one takes this worldview as a true representation of the world as it really is (in scientific terms) that it would be wrong (just like the geocentric view). The ancients, however, did not take it as such but as a reflection of the invisible world which they regarded as the truly real world which lies beyond this material world. In fact, many Christians who accept the scientific worldview see no contradiction in also believing in heaven and Hell which belong to the invisible world.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Of particular interest is the fact that these cosmic regions - which are beyond sensible reach - were within the reach of the shamans and mystics. They journeyed to these regions in inner experience. They were able to do this through some kind of coincidence of their own psychology with the mentioned cosmic regions - they experienced in their inner sense that they travelled through those regions [6]. One can say that the visible representation of the invisible world in the starry heavens served as the basis for their own interaction with that world in inner experience. They believed that in the same way that humans bodily interact with the material world through their physical senses, they can interact with the invisible world with their soul through some kind of inner sense. This is the "truly real" invisible world of which the material world is merely a shadow as we find in Plato's beautiful story of the cave in his <i>Republic</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">We can now bring this ancient worldview within the framework of science. Whereas the physical world studied by science provides our scientific picture of the world, the invisible world in which the ancients believed was visualized by them as a three-tiered picture of the world. Since the three-tiered picture was never intended to be taken as an image of our material world and it merely served as an imagery device in which the otherworld was brought into focus, we need not see it in any way as being in conflict with the scientific view of the world. The primary question before us is whether such a world really exists?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Those who believe in the spirit world (as the invisible world is also called) think that humans do, in fact, have access to such a realm on a spiritual level. Those who do not believe therein, think that such kind of experiences goes no deeper than our human psychology. As such, all "near-death" and mystical experiences are explained as manifestations of our human psychology. The primary question, which science has not been able to answer, is: <i>Is that world only in the mind or is it rather that we access that world only through the mind?</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">The problem is again the one of empirical access. There is no possible way that we can empirically determine whether such experiences are merely psychological or whether they involve real entities within a spirit world. Some cases have been reported in this regard where the brain's metabolism had been brought down so that it didn't require oxygen or glucose after which the patient told how she observed the operation from a disembodied position in the room and even described the particular saw used to open her skull. Those who think that this merely reflects psychological states think that the patient's visual imagery came from familiar memory and that she must have been able to see the saw when she was wheeled into the operation room (for a more detailed discussion, see [7]).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Those who believe that this kind of experience is real and that the patient observed the operation through the eyes of the soul (to use Plato's expression) cannot prove it because the soul (if it exists) is beyond empirical reach (it is non-material). Those who believe that this experience is merely psychological can also not prove that this is the case. They merely state that those things which are beyond empirical reach do not exist which is obviously not necessarily the case. Although traditional science focused primarily on the study of material things, the advent of quantum physics has shown that non-material entities outside space-time exist which suggest the possibility of other things existing beyond experimental reach (think, for example, of dark matter and dark energy). This means that we cannot <i>in principle</i> exclude the possible existence of the soul (and the spirit realm) from scientific discussion.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Theoretical physicists who study dark matter, have proposed that humans may have a quantum body made from this stuff [8]. Although they are fast to say that this has nothing to do with the soul, this obviously shows a remarkable correspondence with our understanding of the soul. How something like this could be brought within indirect empirical reach in an experiment has yet to be seen.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">There is, however, a way to bring the scientific and ancient worldviews together in one coherent perspective. In this regard, we may remember that Plato's invisible realm had its origin with the mystics as he mentions in the <i>Phaedo</i>. In this, he clearly states that the soul exists in this invisible realm (which belong to the inner experience of the mystics) whereas the body belongs to the visible realm. Now, Kant's idea of the supersensible realm originated from Plato's invisible realm and he also locates the soul in that realm (within the context of his regulative metaphysics).</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In Kant's regulative metaphysics - especially in his <i>Critique of the Power of Judgment</i> (also called the third <i>Critique</i>; 1790) where he presents the supersensible realm within the context of his philosophy of science - this realm is clearly delineated as being the substratum of both the material world (more correctly, systemic or mechanistic "nature") as well as our human nature <span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;">(5:196, 409, 429). Kant proposed (as a regulative idea) that the supersensible realm, which is "outside" (albeit not in any physical sense) proper space/time as well as mechanistic nature, incorporates non-extended "wholes-and-parts" (outside proper space/time) which have a certain potentiality to produce material parts and aggregated wholes in nature. In his view, we need such a conception to explain the biological products of nature [4]. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 23.811px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-indent: 23.811px;">The interesting </span>thing <span style="text-indent: 23.811px;">is - as mentioned above - that all the conditions of Kant's supersensible realm are satisfied within the quantum realm! [4] This is extremely interesting since this implies that the quantum realm may be our first point of entry to explore the invisible world of the ancients! In the same way that the invisible realm is beyond our sensible reach (and only accessible through spiritual means) the quantum realm is beyond direct empirical reach. This may mean that the invisible world of Platonic and Biblical tradition translates into the quantum world in the framework of contemporary science. Also, the idea of that a part of our human existence may consist of dark matter (and belong to the quantum realm) would be consistent with the ancient idea of the soul belonging to the invisible realm! </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 23.811px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 23.811px;">At this point, we enter the realm of metaphysics. Within the modernist tradition of those who take science as the measure of all things, all metaphysics were (and are) viewed with extreme scepticism since they believed that it represents all those unscientific (and therefore, primitive) aspects of society's thinking. In their view, everything that goes beyond science should be discarded as mere metaphysics. The problem, however, is that science has since been confronted with exactly this problem: in quantum physics we have encountered a world which is beyond empirical reach and of which we can only formulate metaphysical views which are represented in the various interpretations thereof (Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation, Von Neumann's observer interpretation, Bohn's view, the many-worlds interpretation etc.). Today, philosophers of science openly speak of the metaphysics of science! We have all sorts of ideas about what that world really is like but we have no way to establish the truth thereof!</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 23.811px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 23.811px;">Obviously, science has reached a certain limit where it has no choice but to include metaphysics in the discussion. Although the metaphysics of science is clearly delineated, the same can be said about Kant's metaphysics - which may, in fact, be presented as a hypothesis for scientific research! Now, since the Kantian metaphysics may be taken as a rational version of the ancient metaphysical worldview, this implies that we are in effect now able to scientifically test some aspects of that ancient worldview within the parameters of Kantian metaphysics! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-indent: 23.811px;"><br /></span> <span style="text-indent: 23.811px;">Those who hold a scientism view - and<i><b> take contemporary science as the measure of all things</b></i> - now have the problem that science can no longer be strictly kept apart from metaphysics. They do not know whether aspects of the ancient worldview (such as the soul) may eventually be confirmed (through indirect empirical means) <i><b>in the progress of science</b></i>. They can try to reinforce the old view that only that which is empirically accessible is real - but no scientist worth that name would seriously consider that. </span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 23.811px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 23.811px;"><b>Principles for scientific judgment</b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 23.811px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 23.811px;">So, where do we go from here? What is to be allowed and what is to be excluded from serious scientific discussion? Again, Kant has provided us with tools in this regard. We can distinguish three areas of scientific endeavour which correspond with three kinds of scientific judgment. These vary from doing science in classical contexts to immature science (where things at the edge of science such as dark matter and dark energy are studied and theorized about). In the progress of science, things which now lie outside the possibility of experimental access may eventually come within the range of indirect empirical reach (which may eventually require considerable arguments in justifying its truth). As such, things which we may now consider as belonging merely to metaphysics may eventually enter the domain of serious science.</span></div>
<div>
<div align="justify" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 0.63cm;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">1. Determinate Judgment. When objects (and events) are within sensible reach, we use the classic Kantian judgment discussed above, called determinate judgment. This refers not only to classical objects but also to <span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;">microscopic particles that become manifest by impacts, bubble chamber tracks and clicks on counters and which "appear" in space-time (see the work of Pringe (2007) in this regard [9]). As such, we can obtain knowledge in the classical (Kantian) sense of all objects which manifest itself as matter in space-time.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;"><br /></span> <span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;">2. Regulative Judgment [10]. This kind of judgment is named after the Kantian concept of regulative ideas, which goes beyond the concepts of the understanding which apply to objects given in experience and experiment (in space/time). Regulative ideas of reason apply to objects (and events) which are beyond direct empirical confirmation but which may guide scientific research in the form of hypotheses (when they are so confirmed, we may consider them as valid theoretical models). In current science, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, the Big Bang theory as well as quantum mechanics, are such theories. The true nature of the things described by these theories are unknowable (since they are beyond the reach of determinate judgment) and as such, they are the focus of scientific metaphysics.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;"><br /></span> <span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;">Einstein's General Theory of Relativity concerns the totally of mechanistic relations (which goes beyond the limits of empirical reach in degree) and the Big Bang theory concerns something that is forever outside empirical reach (and can only be confirmed very indirectly, for example, through the observation of the redshift of light (which supports the idea of an expanding universe) and the absorption line features in the background radiation which agrees with star formation). Quantum physics is concerned with entities beyond direct empirical reach (which goes beyond the limits of empirical reach in being of a different kind of existence - otherwise they would be so accessible!) [4]. In this case, we may think in terms of the necessary conditions for something to be such or such - for example, the necessary conditions for quantum entities or quantum spontaneity (to use Bohr's expression) to exist. When these conditions are satisfied (through arguments involving mathematical and experimental aspects) we may say that we have good reason to think that these things are true. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;"><br /></span> </span><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img alt="Image result for einstein" height="210" src="https://upliftconnect.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/einstein_feature2.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Albert Einstein (1879-1955)</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: 0.63cm;">3. Reflective Judgment. When we are not able to bring things (even indirectly) within empirical reach but think that the world may be such, then we use this kind of Kantian judgment. This judgment is merely an estimate that things are such or such and may be regarded as a hypothesis. Often mathematical theories in physics or biology serve as such hypotheses. One may think of Strings Theory, the theory that the universe includes higher dimensions and the hypotheses of dark matter and dark energy in this regard. These things are within the realm of immature science and the possibility of their existence belongs to the realm of scientific metaphysics. They belong to the larger metaphysical picture of the world. In the progress of science, things which were at one stage regarded as falling under this kind of judgment may eventually be found to become accessible in regulative judgment.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;"><br /></span> <span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;"><b>Re-considering the Bible</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;"><br /></span> <span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;">We can now consider the ancient (Biblical) worldview within this context. Insofar as this worldview is part of the Judaeo-Christian belief system we may regard it as belonging to religious metaphysics which is outside scientific concern. In this case, one may think that there is no necessary conflict with science (as discussed above) and decide to believe the testimony of the Biblical witnesses as a trustworthy account of historical events (or not). As discussed above, there are no good reasons why their prescientific context should disqualify their testimony - in spite of many pronunciations of certain scholars to the contrary (for a detailed discussion of the hermeneutical and archaeological views of such scholars, see [2, 11]).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">As mentioned above, we are in the lucky position that Kantian metaphysics may be taken as a rational version of the Biblical worldview. As such, we may regard it as a theoretical model on par with any other similar mathematical model which presents a metaphysical picture of our world. The reason why this is of particular importance to our present discussion is that scientific progress has resulted in many aspects of the Kantian metaphysics - which originally belonged to the third kind of judgment (reflective judgment) - coming within the range of the second kind of judgment (regulative judgment). Using the scientific method of testing hypotheses, we may now evaluate the correctness of Kant's metaphysics on various fronts.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Kant's metaphysics includes the following: 1) God created the world (see the fourth antinomy, i.e. conflict of laws), 2) the material world had a beginning (see the first antinomy), 3) the material world has a supersensible (or: noumenal) substrate which is also the substrate of human nature (see the third <i>Critique</i>), 4) the noumenal self of humans is the soul, 5) The supersensible realm is ruled by absolute spontaneity (see the third antinomy). This is necessary for free will which is the ability to live in accordance with the moral law. In the context of biology this may be conceptualized as a potentiality that non-extended "wholes-and-parts" have to produce material parts and aggregated wholes in nature (see the third <i>Critique</i>) [4], 6) an unfolding process of evolution in accordance with God's design through which the potentially of non-extended "wholes-and-parts" to produce material expressions leads to adaptations which result in ever more complex organisms and life forms.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">One may take points 2) - 6) as indirect evidence for the existence of the Judaeo-Christian God. These things are consistent with the view that God created all things in the beginning and that his requirement that humans keep the moral law is in line with their human abilities. Kant also presented the opposing view held by contemporary atheists within the context of his first, third, fourth and seventh antinomies which deny these things.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">During the period after Kant presented his view, there developed a general consensus (in scientific and philosophical circles) that Kant was wrong and that 1) the world had no beginning, 2) the material world has no supersensible substratum, 3) spontaneity does not exist (only deterministic causes exist), 4) humans do not have a soul, 5) all evolution takes place through mechanistic means as described by Darwinistic theory.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">Now, after the advent of Einstein's theories, the Big Bang theory, quantum mechanics and quantum biology, the scientific community now accepts 1) the world had a beginning, 2) the quantum realm exists (which satisfies the conditions of Kant's supersensible realm), 3) quantum indeterminism (which satisfies the Kantian conditions for spontaneity) is proven in the context of the collapse of superpositions of states to reduced states (corresponding with the Kantian regulative concept of non-extended "wholes-and parts" being realized as material parts and wholes). We also find that alternative theories of evolution have been proposed in biology which is consistent with the Kantian model (for a detailed discussion, see [12]). Now, the randomness inherent in neo-Darwinian evolution is replaced by the (quantum) laws of nature in accordance with design in the cosmos [13]. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">These are, in fact, the only things within the reach of science which may serve as indirect evidence for the existence of the Biblical God in contradistinction with other possible gods. The only other evidence is the testimonies found in Scripture. Although the existence of the soul is also important within the Judaeo-Christian worldview, it obviously does not belong exclusively to that view. It may, however, serve as supplementary evidence when taken together with the other evidence.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">The remarkable thing is that Kant's metaphysics had (in spite of it originally being generally rejected!) been shown to be correct insofar as we had been able to test that in the progress of science - which serves as confirmation of the Biblical worldview! Usually, when a theoretical model is confirmed in such a spectacular way, scientists accept that it is valid. But somehow, the idea of God's existence is not allowed within the secular approach of scientism (it is banned in principle). What is also remarkable, is that those who take science as the measure of all things have been shown to be wrong in every possible way (on all the mentioned points)! Nonetheless, the general secular opinion is still that they are right!! This is truly mind-blowing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">If we take the Kantian model in its totality, then only the existence of God and the soul is still outside current scientific debate. Now, although God is forever beyond empirical reach, the soul may eventually come within reach as discussed above. One may argue that the confirmation of things predicted by Kant's metaphysical model (consistent with the scientific method!) serve as substantial evidence for the existence of God in the very same way that the confirmation of things predicted by the Big Bang Theory serves to confirm that event which is also absolutely outside experimental reach (in the same way as God; for a detailed discussion, see [14])). Why would one accept the one but not the other if not through a massive bias against the Biblical position?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">The only outstanding aspect of Kant's model which may eventually come within scientific reach is the human soul. Above, we saw that it may actually already be within the parameters of scientific mathematical theorizing albeit not under that name (within the context of theoretical models of dark matter). It is easy to show that both the soul as well as noumenal intuition (which Christians take as deep impressions of God's voice) are consistent with the scientific worldview (see [15]). I predict that the existence of the soul will also eventually be confirmed (albeit very indirectly).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Conclusion</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">When we consider the trustworthiness of the Bible from a scientific standpoint, we find that the idea that it cannot be trusted because it comes from a prescientific age is very wrong. This is just not the case. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot trust the witness testimonies of the Bible even though large parts of society have been conditioned not to believe it. I think the evidence speaks for itself - but for those from the modernist (atheistic) circle, nothing would serve as sufficient evidence. They would always lift the bar - demanding the kind of evidence which is forever outside our human reach, not because God does not exist but because of the limitations of our human condition.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">It is exactly because of this radically restricted human condition that one can understand why the Bible asserts that it is through God's revelation in Scripture that he had chosen to communicate with humankind. In the end, we as humans can never proceed beyond "knowing in part". Our hope does not lie in the full understanding of all things that science aspires to (which can never happen) but in faith built upon the integrity and trustworthy witness of those people who wrote the Bible. The Biblical perspective is not in conflict with science. Rather, it goes far beyond the reach of science. As such, science can never be the measure of all things. Biblical truth can, however, be that measure.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">[1] Biblical Criticism scholars believe that the Biblical testimony dates long after the events and can as such not be trusted. But that merely reflect their own ideological perspective. The Bible mentions in various places that the authors were indeed eyewitness, for example, the prophets who wrote the monarchical histories of Israel or St. Luke's (Luk. 1:2,3) mentioning his using such eyewitnesses. Various court prophets are mentioned in Hebrew tradition as the ones who wrote down the oracles as well as the story which tells the context in which that happened. Among these were Samuel (I Sam. 10:25), Nathan (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); Gad (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 29:25), Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29), Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15), Iddo (2 Chr. 12:15; 13:22), Elijah (2 Chr. 21:12), Isaiah (2 Chr. 32:32) and others. The author of the Chronicles of the Hebrew kings mentions the histories written by Samuel (from the time of King Saul), Nathan and Gad (from the time of King David), Ahijah (from the time of King Solomon), Shemaiah and Iddo (from the time of King Rehoboam), Elijah (from the time of King Ahab) and Isaiah (from the time of King Hezekiah). Regarding the older stories, I discuss that elsewhere [16].</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[2] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/03/part-2-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The Biblical authors can obviously not be called for cross-examination as we find in our justice system but that does not mean that we cannot use the justice system as the model for evaluating the Biblical story. We can use a process similar to the justice system to make judgments about historical narratives such as those found in the Bible. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[3] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/06/science-and-atheism.html" target="_blank">Science and Atheism</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[4] Willem Mcloud. </span><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/06/kant-noumena-and-quantum-physics.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">Kant, Noumena and Quantum Physics</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> (Introduction)</span><br />
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Published in </span><i style="color: #26282a;">Contemporary Studies in Kantian Philosophy</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a;"> 3 (2018) (94 pages)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">click on: </span><a href="https://www.cckp.space/single-post/2018/06/15/CSKP3-2018-Kant-Noumena-and-Quantum-Physics" rel="nofollow" style="background-color: white; color: #338fe9; font-family: inherit; outline-width: 0px;" target="_blank">https://www.cckp.space/single-post/2018/06/15/CSKP3-2018-Kant-Noumena-and-Quantum-Physics</a></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[5] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/02/the-origins-of-satan-ancient-worldview.html" target="_blank">The origins of Satan: the ancient worldview</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[6] Wilhelm, Richard. 1962. <i>The Secret of the Golden Flower. A Chinese Book of Life.</i> (Translated and explained by Richard Wilhelm with a foreword and commentary by C. G. Jung.) London: Routledge.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[7] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/09/the-god-impulse.html" target="_blank">The God Impulse</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">[8] </span>See, for example, http://www.space.com/21508-dark-matter-atoms-disks.html</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[9] <span style="text-align: justify;">Pringe, H. 2007. </span><i style="text-align: justify;">Critique of the Quantum Power of Judgment. A Transcendental Foundation of Quantum Objectivity</i><span style="text-align: justify;"> (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;">[10] Kant did not conceptualize this kind of judgment but it is in line with his thinking and becomes necessary within the context of indirect empirical data (the idea of which was unknown to Kant).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify;">[11]<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/04/part-1-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank"> Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[12] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2018/02/the-christian-and-evolution.html" target="_blank">The Christian and Evolution</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[13] The question is: Where did the lawfulness of nature originate? Science cannot answer this but presupposes this lawfulness in all its endeavour. It needs the lawfulness of nature to explain the evolution of the cosmos and all in it. Science has no choice but to operate as if nature is designed! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[14] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/science-and-metaphysics-in-search-of.html" target="_blank">Science and Metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot.</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[15] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/10/science-and-spiritual-intuition.html" target="_blank">Science and spiritual intuition</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[16] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2018/03/abraham-holds-key.html" target="_blank">Abraham holds the key</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Dialoger</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The author is a scientist and philosopher (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy and science.</span><br />
<br />
Part 1. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2014/04/part-1-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective</a><br />
Part 2. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2015/03/part-2-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective</a><br />
Part 4. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/05/part-4-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">Can we still believe the Bible? A prophetic perspective</a></div>
<br />
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
</div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-31126014332419612412018-03-05T21:35:00.000-08:002020-04-07T00:27:08.051-07:00Abraham holds the key<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"><i>In this essay, I argue that no other Biblical personage is as important as Abraham when considering the trustworthiness of early Biblical tradition. Abraham stands at the transition between the "ancient history" and the subsequent patriarchal traditions given in the Book of Genesis. As such, both of these traditions are anchored on the historicity of his person. So, the primary question is: Can the Abrahamic tradition be trusted? I provide three levels of arguments why we have good reasons to do exactly that, which centre on 1) the many EARLY Sumerian motifs in the "ancient history" included in Genesis 1-11, 2) the remarkable ACCURACY of the historical information in the story of Abraham and 3) the nature of the Abrahamic tradition which strongly suggests that it had been written down during his own lifetime. This is the final essay in the series on the Book of Genesis.</i></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Our study of the Book of Genesis now brings us to the person of Abraham. Abraham's story is told in Genesis 11:10-25:10. He is the central personage in the Book of Genesis and God's covenant with him prefigures the Mosaic covenant in the Book of Exodus (and even the New Covenant according to Christian thinking). Except for Israel (Jacob) who gave his name to the people of Israel, Abraham is depicted in Hebrew tradition as their most important forefather. </span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What makes Abraham especially important for our present discussion, is the fact that he is presented as the figure who stands between the "ancient history" told in Genesis 1-11 and the patriarchal traditions of Genesis 12-50. Whereas the "ancient history" is located in the land of Sumer (as well as regions to the north thereof), Abraham is the one who is said to have migrated from Sumer, the land of his forefathers, to Canaan, the land of promise, where his descendants established themselves. As such, it is quite natural to think that he brought those ancient traditions with him when he migrated westwards. This is the basis for the Sumerian Hypothesis presented in this series of essays.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Although this seems to be a logical conclusion, this is not how some fundamentalist Christians (influenced by the Seventh-day Adventists) or Biblical Criticism scholars see things. The first group often thinks that God revealed those things directly to Moses and that there was no handing down of tradition in this regard. Although this is surely possible, the close correspondence with similar Sumerian stories suggests otherwise. The second group nowadays prefer the Babylonian Hypothesis according to which the Mesopotamian material in the Book of Genesis had its origin during the Babylonian exile (there is also a view that these motifs entered Israelite tradition during the monarchic period but the extent of the correspondence with Sumerian tradition makes it extremely unlikely that it happened at any other time when contact between those regions was not that close). In this view, Abraham is typically not considered as a historical person and the tradition about his migration is not taken seriously. </span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In previous essays on this blog (as part of the series on the Book of Genesis), I presented many reasons why the Sumerian Hypothesis is to be preferred to the Babylonian one. Although I have not yet considered the historicity of Abraham in the discussion, there cannot be any doubt that this stands central to the validity of the Sumerian Hypothesis. Even though the arguments presented so far have strong significance on their own (they are very difficult to explain without the Sumerian Hypothesis), they are basically grounded on the idea that the Mesopotamian material in the Book of Genesis had its origin within the context of the migration of the Abrahamic family from Ur in Sumer to Canaan.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In this essay, I discuss the historicity of Abraham from three different angles. The first angle is primarily concerned with the obvious Sumerian motifs in the "ancient history" (Gen. 1-11). I give an overview thereof and show that it is extremely difficult to explain these without calling upon the Sumerian Hypothesis in some way (and by implication, on the truth of the Abrahamic story). The second angle focuses on the Abrahamic story itself and the historical information therein. I argue that some of this information is impossible to explain without accepting that it originated from trustworthy sources. The third angle considers the nature of the Abrahamic tradition (especially its oracular nature) which strongly suggests that it was written down during the lifetime of Abraham himself. These points make a remarkably strong case for a historical Abraham and the Sumerian Hypothesis.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><br />
</b></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>The Sumerian origin of the "ancient history"</b></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There are various motifs in the "ancient history" which are consistent with the Sumerian Hypothesis which at the same time resist any explanation in terms of the Babylonian Hypothesis. What is so interesting, is that there are so many of these motifs! They all point in one direction: an early Sumerian origin. And that suggests that they became part of the Hebrew tradition after being handed down for a long time by the Abrahamic family. </span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">1. The strong Sumerian influence in the creation story</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Any scholar who is familiar with the Sumerian tradition cannot but to observe the remarkably strong Sumerian influence in the creation story. The opening words, namely that God created "heaven and earth", uses the traditional Sumerian term for the cosmos. The "deep" (primaeval waters) which existed before all things (even before God commenced with his acts of creation!) finds its equivalent in the Sumerian primaeval "Apsu" from which "heaven and earth" were created according to Sumerian sources.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The light which God created on the first day (as his very first act of creation) finds its equivalent in the brilliant light, called Gibil, which appeared from the primaeval Apsu. The "firmament" (heaven) and earth that were created on the second and third days respectively fit perfectly with the Sumerian worldview – the idea of creation out of water (and establishing dry ground – and even the cosmos as such) is an old Sumerian motif. The creation of the sun only on the fourth day (at a later stage in the process of creation) reflects the late arrival of the sun god on the scene in Sumerian tradition (he was a later offspring of the gods) (see [1] for a detailed discussion).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">From a Biblical point of view, this close correspondence with the Sumerian tradition suggests that the author of the Book of Genesis used source material originating from this milieu (i.e., that was the world which moulded the thinking of the person/s who wrote the source material) and that he reworked those ancient motifs within an evolving Hebrew tradition. As such, he included the creation of all sorts of plants and animals, as well as humans, and replaced the polytheistic perspective of the Sumerians with the monotheistic view of the Hebrews. <i><b>Of particular importance in this regard is the fact that these Sumerian motifs in the creation story show absolutely no influence whatsoever from developments after the Abrahamic period (i.e. no motifs which are distinctively neo-Babylonian or neo-Assyrian).</b></i></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The idea that the creation story of Genesis 1 was influenced by the Babylonian <i>Enuma Elis</i> (creation epic) is far-fetched. A possible association between the Hebrew word <i>tehom</i> (deep) and the sea monster Tiamat proves nothing since those ideas were around since Akkadian times (ca. 2370-2190 BC). We do not find any of the complicated creation motifs typical of the Babylonian creation story (for example, of the war between the older and younger generations of gods (the latter led by Marduk) or the creation of the world from the body of the killed monster) in Genesis 1. Although there are clear Mesopotamian influences, these are typical of the early Sumerian traditions (the world of Abraham and his forefathers) and not in accordance with later developments in Babylonian thinking. In a previous essay some years ago, I challenged any scholar to provide a single thread of evidence to the contrary!! [2] Nobody has done that.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Those who argue for the Babylonian Hypothesis usually take Genesis 1 as a polemical text written late in Israel's development. As such, they explain the late arrival of the sun, moon and stars on the scene as an effort by the Hebrew author (from the time of the exile or thereafter) to argue that the gods of the surrounding nations cannot be compared with the great creator God of the Hebrews who is so powerful that He could create light and let the plants grow even without the presence of the sun. The problem for this view, however, is that Marduk, the main god of the neo-Babylonians, was a weather god and the sun and moon gods did not play an important role in the Babylonian (or Mesopotamian for that matter) theology! As such, this view makes no sense - why would the author try to assert the authority of the Hebrew God against such unimportant gods? It seems much better to think that this was not a polemical text at all – its purpose seems to have been totally different (see below).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There are also those who think in terms of an Egyptian origin for the creation story. This means that the author was directing his arguments towards the Egyptian gods. This is possible if we assume that the text was written in a period when the Israelites had some interaction with the Egyptians, which happened during various periods in Israel's history. In this case, the argument could work: One of the oldest and most prominent Egyptian gods was the creator god Atum who was syncretized with the sun god Ra. And the motif of the primaeval earth coming forth out of the primaeval waters is also an old Egyptian concept (as it is a Mesopotamian one).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There is, however, an important reason not to accept this view, namely that the rest of the ancient history in Genesis is clearly taken from ancient Mesopotamian (more correctly, Sumerian or Akkadian) sources (Akkadian is the Semitic language spoken in ancient Sumer). So, on what grounds would one prefer an Egyptian background for the text? And why cling to the polemical view? It seems much easier to take the order of creation (with the sun, moon and stars created later in the process) as typical of ancient Sumerian thinking.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">2. The Sumerian influence on the story of Adam and Eve</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The garden story also shows strong Sumerian influence. The main personage of the Biblical story, namely Adam, corresponds with the similarly named Adapa of Sumerian tradition – Adam is presented as the first known human with whom God had a relationship whereas Adapa was the founding sage who brought civilization to Sumer and the first human with whom the Supreme god An (which in my view corresponds with the Semitic god El) had a relationship. Adapa was misled by the Sumerian god Enki (who is sometimes described as a snake) regarding the food of life in the same way that Eve was misled by the snake regarding the food of the tree. In both cases, God (or a god) prevented them from eating from the food/tree of life. </span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In the garden story, God is presented as a potter who made Adam from clay and created Eve from Adam's rib. Both of these are well-known Sumerian motifs which are clearly used by the Biblical author as metaphors. Of special interest is the story of Eve's creation. This story is clearly reworked from a very well-known ancient image which we find in the story of the Sumerian god Enki's creation of eight other gods and goddesses from his own body, who were all named after various parts of his body in a play of words. One of these was a virgin goddess called Ninti, whose name means "lady rib" but play on the words "lady life". Now, this is exactly what we find in the garden story in the Book of Genesis: Eve is taken from the rib of Adam and her name is later said to mean "life" (Gen. 3:20). The reason why the author used and reworked this Sumerian story to introduce Eve was that he wanted to accentuate that she was in the closest sense one with Adam (i.e that they belonged together in marriage which was not universally instituted (presumably even in Canaan) until relatively late as we know from Mycenaean tradition; Gen. 2:24), just as the mentioned gods and goddesses were in the closest possible sense associated with their parent god (for a detailed discussion, see [3]).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The fact that these are very old Sumerian motifs seems to suggest that the author of the source material for the garden story came from a milieu where this was the typical motifs which suggested themselves to him – which is in line with my reading of the creation story in Genesis 1 above. Although these motifs would also have been available to a later author from the time of the Babylonian exile, it would have been very strange if he used these very "heathen" motifs given that he had a long Hebrew tradition behind him which would have included other possible metaphors (the metaphor of God as potter was indeed incorporated in later Hebrew tradition).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">3. Other Sumerian influences in the garden story</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There are many other motifs in the garden story which go back to ancient Sumer – some of which belong to an ancient stratum of thinking which was very different from that which was current during the period of the exile. In this regard a comparison with the garden (of Eden) stories of the prophet Ezekiel (in chapters 28 and 31) – who did, in fact, live during the exile – is informative.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Consider the geographical location of the garden. According to the story it was located somewhere in the east in the area of the "heads" (headwaters) of the Tigrus, Euphrates, Gihon (Gaihun, called Araxes after the Islamic invasion of the Caucasus) and Pishon (Uizhum) (for a detailed discussion, see [4]). This would be somewhere in the northern Zagros mountains – exactly where the ancient Sumerians placed their own origins. One may suggest that both the Sumerians and Semites living in Sumer traced their origins back to that northern region.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In the ancient Middle Eastern worldview, this garden was close to (or on top of) the "mountain of the gods" which the Sumerians located in the northern Zagros (in the land of Aratta [5]) as we read in <i>Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta</i> [6]. Later, during the Ur III period (ca. 2150-2050 BC), this northern location was replaced by one in the Cedar Mountains which was located in the distant west (originally identified with the Amanus and later with the Lebanon mountains) as we find in the <i>Gilgamesh Epic</i> [4]. This change reflects developments during the Akkadian period (ca. 2370-2190 BC) when those kings started making long journeys to the Amanus and the Mediterranean Sea in the west. In accordance with this change in location due to later developments in the Semitic tradition, the garden is placed in the Lebanon mountains in the stories of Ezekiel - in line with the tradition found in the <i>Gilgamesh Epic</i>. </span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">As such, the contrast between the locations of the garden in the Book of Genesis and in Ezekiel can be explained easily. The story in the Book of Genesis reflects an extremely old tradition going back before the Akkadian period (2350-2150 BC) when the mountain of the gods was still located in the northern Zagros long before it became associated with the Amanus and later the Lebanon mountains. This is consistent with the other ancient Sumerian motifs in the book. The story of Ezekiel on the other hand clearly reflects the tradition found in the <i>Epic of Gilgamesh</i>, which was current at the time of the Babylonian exile.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What about the tree in the garden? In the story in the Book of Genesis, the tree is said to bear some kind of fruit – which stands (once again) in direct contrast with the cedar of Ezekiel's description. What is more, the close association between the serpent and the cosmic tree (growing in the "middle" of the garden) is not unique to the Bible; it is a very old motif that goes back to the earliest strata of ancient Sumerian thought. In ancient Sumerian literature, there are various stories where we find such a close association between the serpent and the tree, namely that of Inana and the Halub tree, the myth of Lugalbanda as well as the legend of Etana. </span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In these Sumerian stories, there is another creature which is also associated with the same tree, namely the Anzu eagle. The eagle is typically depicted in the top of the tree, whereas the serpent is depicted at the bottom. One may suggest that these Mesopotamian eagles correspond to the Biblical cherubim which would explain why we find both the serpent as well as such cherubim mentioned in the garden story in Genesis. Cherubim also have large wings and we read in Hebrew poetry that God rides on a cherub (Ps. 18:10, 11; the Anzu was also associated with the abode of the king of the gods in Sumerian tradition). Interestingly, the cherubim of later Biblical tradition are depicted differently with four heads, namely of a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle (Ezek. 1:5-10; 10:20-21) [7].</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">We furthermore find (consistent with such a Sumerian origin for this motif!) the same antagonism between the realms of heaven and the underworld (to which the snake belonged - it guards the "pit" at the bottom of the tree in the Etana story) in both the Sumerian and Hebrew traditions. This is a very old motif which appears in the Etana legend where the snake and eagle are depicted as antagonists fighting each other. There is a remarkable correspondence with the garden story where God (associated with the cherubim) and the snake are presented as opposing figures. As one expects from such an old text, the snake is, however, not directly identified as Satan as we find in later Hebrew tradition. As such, the depiction of the conflict between God and the snake is much more in line with early Sumerian tradition (as we find in the Etana legend) than later Hebrew tradition from the time of the exile when this conflict was presented as being between God and his great antagonist, Satan (see, for example, Zech. 3:1-5) (for a detailed discussion, see [8]).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">It had been proposed by Sumerologists that this motif of the cosmic tree, snake and eagle goes back to ancient shamanistic traditions from northern Asia [9]. What is interesting regarding this shamanistic theme, is that the serpent which tempted Eve shows close correspondence with a motif found in shamanistic traditions from those regions, namely among the Yahut shamans where the "spirit" of the cosmic tree is perceived of as a naked woman at the roots of the tree (which were associated in Sumer with snakes, i.e. suggesting a women with the lower body of a snake as we find with the ancient Sumerian goddess Ninhursag). She tempts the aspirant shaman with the milk of her breasts which is said to be a symbol of the consciousness-altering mushrooms which grow in close proximity to such trees (especially birch trees). This may explain the "fruit" of the tree in the Biblical story which is obviously not of the usual kind since it had the power to "open" one's eyes and enable you to become like "the gods" (for a detailed discussion, see [10]).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">4. Sumerian influences in the rest of the ancient history</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When we come to the rest of the ancient history of Genesis 4-11 we find that it too has features which show strong Sumerian influence going back to late Sumerian and early Old Babylonian times (i.e. the time of Abraham). It has a very distinct style which differs from that of the patriarchal history as well as the other historical narratives given in the Bible. What distinguishes the ancient history is 1) genealogical lists of the earliest remembered forefathers, 2) particularly long lifetimes accorded to these people, some of whom are said to have lived for nearly a millennium, 3) short accounts of events related to some of these persons – some in-between the genealogies and others within the genealogies, 4) a Sumerian background for some of the stories (taking place in the land “Shinar”).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Readers who are acquainted with the Sumerian King List would immediately recognize a close agreement with that text – in line with the reference to that land in the text itself. The Sumerian King List was probably compiled during the reign of king Utuhegal of Uruk during the end of the third millennium BC although the oldest copies found so far date from the time of the Isin dynasty early in the second millennium BC. As with Genesis 4-11, the list contains genealogies of early forefathers, some of whom also lived centuries-long lives as well as short comments about some of these figures. The difference between the texts is that the Hebrew text includes short stories between the different genealogical lists, whereas the Sumerian King List does not. This is, however, not too far removed from the Sumerian King List which also uses information from Sumerian stories (some of which correspond to the Biblical ones).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">One may also compare the Hebrew tradition with the Amoritic king lists from the Old Babylonian Period (during the early second millennium BC). In this case, the king lists of the historical kings were also preceded by the names of their forefathers. The difference is, however, that these lists do not ascribe such long lifetimes to these forefathers as we find in the Sumerian King List and one also does not find the short commentaries typical of that list. So, although the ancient history in Genesis serves as the preamble to the patriarchal narratives (of Abraham etc.) in a similar way that the Amorites’ list their forefathers before proceeding with the reigns of their kings, the correspondence with the Sumerian King List is much closer.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This close correspondence between the ancient history of Genesis 4-11 and the Sumerian King List forces us to consider the possibility that was written (at least in its original version) during the epoch when that style was still in use, which would be some time during the early Old Babylonian Period (the time when Abraham is said to have lived). This would immediately explain why the Hebrew text has so much in common with the Sumerian King List, namely that it originated in the very milieu where that style was in use. The problem with the Babylonian Hypothesis is that one has to accept that the author (for some very strange reason) imitated a style that had been out of use for more than a thousand years! This does not make sense (except if one is has been paradigmatically conditioned to only accept the validity of the Babylonian Hypothesis!).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What is more, the Biblical personages and stories mentioned in the ancient history (Adam, Enoch, the flood, early origins in the land of Ararat, Nimrod, the building of the Tower of Babel and the subsequent confusion of languages etc.) also correspond to a remarkable degree with </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px;">personages and stories in Sumerian tradition (Adapa, Etana ("he who went to heaven"), the flood, early origins in the land of Aratta, Enmerkar, the building projects during the Uruk period at Uruk and Eridu, the confusion of languages etc.) </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">(for a detailed discussion, see [11]). Just as Enoch went to heaven, Etana is said to have gone to heaven (on the back of an eagle). One finds a remarkable correspondence between the stories and genealogies of the Cush and Kash (Mes-kiag-kash-er) families. One of the members of this family was Nimrod, who correspond with the Sumerian Enmer-</span>kar<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"> (N-m-r(d), the hunter). As was the case with Nimrod, </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px;">Enmerkar was a great Sumerian king who ruled from Uruk and who conquered all the land to the north (including the land of Aratta). The confusion of languages is mentioned in both traditions (called the "Incantation of Nudimmud" in Sumer) and can be grounded historically in the context of the introduction of the first phonetic writing at the end of the Uruk period [11].</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What is quite astonishing, and excludes the possibility of later borrowing, is that this does not merely constitute a detailed agreement between traditions (although there are also differences as can be expected from the parallel transmission of traditions), but that these traditions constitute a perspective on ancient Sumerian history that is very much in line with archaeological evidence (with the deluge referring to the well-documented break between the Ubaid and Uruk periods (for a detailed discussion, see [12])). <i><b>In fact, the Biblical tradition is consistent with a viable reconstruction of Sumerian history from the time before the deluge until after the Uruk Period (ca. sixth to early third millennia BC</b></i> [11]) – something that is not even found in Sumerian tradition where the ancient history of the land must be reconstructed from the textual sources and archaeological data. The obvious question is: How on earth did the Biblical author know how to arrange his history – placing the personages in the correct historical context? It does not make sense that the author wrote it down millenniums after these things happened without access to a continuous and reliable tradition.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">5. A Sumerian/Akkadian origin for Abraham's God</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There is also information from the rest of the Book of Genesis which suggests a Sumerian origin. Of particular importance is the reference to two El-gods, namely the Most High God (El-Elyon) and God Almighty (El-Shaddai). Although Abraham is said to have worshipped God in both these forms, the context in which they are worshipped is very different. The Most High God was worshipped on the mountain of God in Salem, whereas the Almighty God was worshipped as the ancestral God of Abraham and the fathers (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; Ex. 6:3 etc.) (for a detailed discussion, see [13]).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Why this difference and how would one explain it? In Hebrew tradition, the Most High God was identified as the "father of the gods" who gathered on his cosmic mountain (Ps 82:6; Deut. 32:8). These gods (who were in later tradition called angels) are accordingly called "sons of God" (see Gen. 6:2; Job. 1: 6; 2: 1; 38: 7; also in the Septuagint in Ps. 29:1 & 89:6; Deut. 32:8, 43). This is an ancient concept found in both Sumerian and Canaanite (Semitic) tradition. The Almighty God, on the other hand, is called "God of your fathers" (Gen. 49: 23-25) - a concept which also belongs to the world of Abraham. According to Exodus 6:2 this is the God who was later called Yahweh, the God [Elohim] of Israel (Ex. 5:1). So, as one would expect, the "God of the fathers" became the "God of Israel". This name is first introduced in the shortened form "Yahweh God" in Genesis 2:4. </span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Now, in contrast with the Most High God who was the father of the gods, this God "of the fathers" is depicted as the great warrior-king of the gods (already in the song about Israel's deliverance from Egypt; Ex. 15:11; Ps. 95:6; 1 Ki. 22:19; Ps. 82:1; 89:7-8). In fact, it seems that this Yahweh was even taken to be the firstborn son of the Most High God (who stands apart from the generic "sons of God") to whom he gave the people of Israel as an inheritance when he divided the nations among the "sons of God" (Deut. 32:8-9). Although it has been suggested that Yahweh has merely set Israel apart for himself, that goes very much against the idea of “inheritance”.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This distinction between the father of the gods and the king of the gods (in the council of the gods) was an ancient one. We find it in both Canaanite and Sumerian tradition but it is only in the Sumerian tradition that the king of the gods was also considered to be the direct (and only) son of the father of the gods. There was a variant tradition that Enki was also a son of An but there cannot be any doubt that this is a mere syncretism since two distinct groups of gods headed by An and Enki respectively go back to our earliest Sumerian sources from Fara (about 2500 BC). </span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In Sumer, the father of the gods was called An, whose name means “exalted, most high”. The elevated position of this god can be seen in the manner in which his name was written in cuneiform. All the names of the gods were combined with the sign for “god” which showed the reader that a god is spoken of (called a determinative). In the case of An, however, no such sign appears behind his name; his name is also the sign for god. He was “God”, the elevated one above all other gods. According to the earliest literary tradition from Fara (about 2500 BC) as well as later Sumerian tradition, the worship of this God was extremely old. Since this sign was read by the Semites as "el", we may accept that the name An itself was understood as the god El who was incorporated into the Sumerian pantheon as the father of the gods.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The son of An was the god Enlil who was also the king of the gods in the council of the gods [14]. Sumerian scholars have proposed that this name originated from a duplication of the name El, i.e. that the symbol for El was accompanied by the symbol for god (el) [15]. There are various problems with this view. Although Enlil was indeed a Semitic god, he was worshipped as king of the gods which was very much distinct from El's traditional role as the father of the gods. The other problem is that El.El immediately also presents a duplication of the name El.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The Sumerians would have had theological speculations about the meaning of this name which implies a duplication of the God El into another God El. One may suggest that they would have thought that the God El, the father of the gods, duplicated himself to produce another god who shared his divine being, namely El.El (Enlil) who became the king of the gods. His kingship should be understood in the long Semitic (and Sumerian) tradition where this title was associated with warrior-kings. As king, he had the title "Lord" and was the one who pronounced the decision (word) of the council of the gods. As powerful ruler of heaven and earth, he was called the "Mighty One" [16] (see Gen. 49:24; Deut. 10:17). At this point, one cannot but see the close correspondence with the later Israelite tradition which would then constitute a continuation of this early Semitic tradition.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What I suggest, is that the relation between the Most High God (El-Elyon) and the Almighty God (El-Shaddai) as father and son goes back long before the time of Abraham in Semitic tradition – they were incorporated into Sumerian tradition as An and Enlil (as such these gods developed a particular Sumerian character). It is interesting to hear Balaam, who did not participate in the Israelite tradition going back to mount Sinai, referring to both of El-Elyon and El-Shaddai in one proverb: “He hath said, which heard the words of God (El), and knew the knowledge of the Most High, which saw the vision of the Almighty” (Num. 24:16; see also Ps. 91:1). This parallelism is similar to one from Sumerian poetry in which the fall of Ur is bemoaned: “In truth, I shed my tears in front of An. In truth, myself I mourned in front of Enlil” [17].</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In my understanding, the two forms of the God El in the Book of Genesis reflect the ancient Sumerian/Semitic tradition in which the father of the gods and king of the gods were distinct from each other (they were later regarded as manifestations of one God in the Hebrew tradition). In my view, this also explains the way in which the names of God are used in the Book of Genesis which Biblical Criticism scholars usually explain in terms of their Documentary Hypothesis (for a critical analysis, see [2, 18]). This divine duality is found throughout Israel's long literary history until we read in the vision in the Book of Daniel that the “Son of man” appeared before the Ancient of days sitting on his glorious throne to receive eternal kingship over all the gods [13]. </span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>The historicity of Abraham</b></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">At this point, I think that any reader would have to admit that there is a remarkable amount of information in the ancient history (and the rest) of the Book of Genesis which was taken from Sumerian sources. This is true for the creation story (Gen.1), the garden story (Gen. 2-3) as well as the rest of the ancient history (Gen. 4-11). In fact, <i>most of the important themes</i> (although not in their particularly Hebrew presentation) can be found in Sumerian tradition. There cannot be any doubt that the author did not only purposively place the origins of his people (and all their ancient history) in Sumer (and the lands to the north thereof); he (or at least the author of the source material) was also deeply influenced by ancient Sumerian thought in a way that is consistent with the tradition about which he was writing (and from which he himself supposedly came). His writing style, his metaphors, the main characters and their stories find their closest equivalence in the ancient Babylonian milieu from the time of Abraham. <i><b>And most importantly - there is absolutely no Mesopotamian influence whatsoever in the Book of Genesis which belongs to later developments in Mesopotamian thought per se. </b></i></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="File:Grechetto (Giovanni Benedetto Castiglione) - Journey of the Family of Abraham - Google Art Project.jpg" height="260" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Grechetto_%28Giovanni_Benedetto_Castiglione%29_-_Journey_of_the_Family_of_Abraham_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/800px-Grechetto_%28Giovanni_Benedetto_Castiglione%29_-_Journey_of_the_Family_of_Abraham_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Journey of the Family of Abraham (painted by Giovanni Benedetto Castiglione in 1650-1660)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">These things suggest that the story about Abraham's journey from Ur in Sumer to Canaan should be taken seriously. Although scholars from the Biblical Criticism tradition have consistently refused to do this [19], new archaeological evidence which is consistent with the Biblical tale proves them wrong. Of particular importance in this regard, is the Elamite incursion that is said to have happened in the period after Abraham migrated from Harran (where he and his family are said to have stayed for some time) to Canaan.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">We are in the fortunate position that we do not only now know that such an incursion of the Elamites into northwestern Syria actually took place during that time but also when namely in 1822 BC (according to the "high" Mesopotamian chronology; it happened only once during the relevant period). Of particular interest is the fact that the date of this event is consistent with the Septuagint dating of Abraham’s arrival in Canaan, namely in 1837 BC. (The Masoretic text gives a later date).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">If we take the Septuagint reading serious, then the Elamite incursion would have happened 15 years after Abraham’s arrival in Canaan, during the reign of Siwe-palar-huppak, king of Elam, which is about 19 years before Hammurabi became overlord of Mesopotamia in 1818 BC after his victory over Rim-Sin of Larsa. The northern invaders might have marched under the leadership of Kudu-zulus, the brother of the Elamite king, who ruled in Esnunna in Sumer [20]. One may even suggest that the name “Kedor” in Kedor-Laómer, the name of the leader of the invaders according to the Biblical narrative, goes back to “Kudu” in Kudu-zulus because these names have the same root form K-d.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Another interesting piece of information in the Hebrew Bible is that Abraham journeyed to Egypt – seemingly directly after his first arrival in Canaan because there was famine in the land (see Gen. 12:5-10). According to the Septuagint, this happened in about 1836 BC, which is consistent with the well-known depiction at Beni Hassan in Egypt of a man called Abishai/r, which is of the same Amorite name-type as Abraham [21]. This Abishai/r is shown in the tomb of Khnumhotep II, administrator of the Eastern Desert who had close ties with the royal court, with his entourage arriving with "greeting gifts" in Egypt in the sixth year of king Senusert II in 1836 BC (according to K. A. Kitchen's low Egyptian chronology). He is described as a "ruler of the hill-lands" (Canaan). This corresponds to the Biblical description of Abraham as a "mighty prince" from Canaan (Gen. 28:6).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Abishai's entourage included thirty-seven men with their families (even though only some of these are shown [22]) who were Asiatics of Shu, a geographical term which probably refers to the southern Levant (most scholars identify it with the region east of the Jordan River – which is also the region through which Abraham came from Harran to Canaan). Also relevant to the discussion, is the colourful robe "patterned with stripes and chevrons" [22] worn by Abishai/r which reminds of such a robe mentioned in the Biblical tradition in connection with Joseph (Gen. 37:3).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Image result for beni hassan" src="http://antiqua91.fr/Beni-Hassan-Peinture.jpg?v=23yzm81vuyeob2" height="191" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Abishai and his entourage arriving in Egypt from Canaan</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What shall we make of this? These correspondences may be a mere coincidence. It is, however, also possible that a Semitic prince called Abraham/Abishai in the Hebrew and Egyptian traditions respectively arrived from Canaan in Egypt in the year 1836 BC (if we take the Septuagint as consistent with Kitchen's low chronology and the Mesopotamian high chronology - I argued elsewhere that this is by far the best way to reconstruct the ancient Middle Eastern chronology [23]). The reason for taking this possibility seriously is that the Hebrew tradition does, in fact, includes data that is consistent with evidence from Mesopotamia in accordance with the high chronology (see above). Also, according to the Hebrew tradition Abraham's coming to Egypt was noted even at the royal court which would be consistent with the remarkable (and unique) depiction at Beni Hassan.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Although we can obviously not prove that Abraham was a historical personage, the remarkable consistency with known archaeological facts as well as the strong Sumerian influence on the stories about Abraham's forebears gives us reason to think that this is indeed a trustworthy tradition. In fact, <i><b>it is impossible to explain the correctness of the information about the Elamitic incursion to northern Syria without accepting the trustworthiness of the Biblical story</b></i> (there is also nothing that goes against this assessment). At this point, we may take a closer look at the nature of the Abrahamic tradition with the hope that we may find some clues therein regarding its origin.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>The essential nature of the Abrahamic tradition</b></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When we take a closer look at the Abrahamic tradition, there is one thing that immediately jumps to our attention, namely the remarkable amount of oracular material. We read that God first appeared to Abraham at Ur in Sumer and then again at various points throughout his story (Gen. 12:1-3; 12:7; 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-22; 18:1-33; 22:1-2, 15-18). In fact, the story of Abraham is closely interwoven with the many oracles ascribed to the Almighty God (Gen. 17:1; Ex. 6:2). We even read that Abraham is called a "prophet" in Hebrew tradition (Gen. 29:7).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Now, the tradition of writing down oracles also had a long history in ancient Mesopotamia, since the time of the Akkadian kings who ruled over Sumer (ca. 2370-2190 BC) and persisting in the western regions such as Mari where those traditions were kept alive. In Akkadian times, animals were sacrificed to inspect their intestines for an oracle from the gods. As these were considered to be of divine provenance great care was taken to make clay models of the intestines on which the oracles were also inscribed. Also, in the epic tales of these great kings, these oracles are mentioned as part of their story. These stories belong to a long Semitic oral tradition in which they were told and retold by court poets throughout the centuries. During the early second millennium BC, there were poet-prophets in the western city of Mari who also wrote down prophecies which had come down to us. Some of these prophecies were connected with the kings of Mari - of whom epic tales were also told.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What is of particular importance to our story is the fact that these Mari prophecies date from the time of Abraham - who would have travelled past that city on his way to the west. As such, the custom of receiving and writing down prophecies that we find in Abrahamic tradition - and even the practice of incorporation such oracles in the stories as a whole - have a long history in the world from which Abraham came! <i><b>Since such oracles were considered with great awe - which is also why they were written down when they were first given - it seems reasonable to assume that this practice also applied to the very similar Abrahamic tradition.</b></i> This reading is in line with the overwhelming evidence for Sumerian influence in the ancient history - which is also written down in a style that reflects that ancient milieu! This strongly suggests that the patriarchal stories were (indeed) written down (at least in the form of the source material which was used by the Biblical author) during the period in which they are placed!</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">One cannot but notice that these early literary roots are also reflected in the rest of Hebrew tradition where we read that Moses was a prophet (Num. 12:6-8; Deut. 34:10) who received various oracles from God which he wrote down and taught the people (Ex. 19:7-9; 24:3-8; 34:27, 28). In this case, the circumstances in which they were received are also mentioned (Ex. 17:14; Nu. 33:1, 2). Later, Moses's successor Josua is also said to have written down some of Moses's oracles which are said to have dated from the time of Moses himself (Jos. 8:32; 24:26). Other oracles are also identified with the period of the judges. In later tradition, from the time of Samuel, the Hebrew prophets were the ones who did not only wrote down the oracles but also the historical context in which they were given [24]. </span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Also interesting is the importance of oral tradition within Semitic circles during the late third and early second millenniums BC. In the time of the Akkadian period, we read how Enheduanna, the daughter of king Sargon the Great, who wrote three poems in honour of the goddess Inana, called in one of these upon the poets to hand it down verbatum: “That which I recited to you at (mid)night, May the singer repeat it to you at noon”. The original use of the word implies that the poem had to be repeated: “in the presumably technical sense of repeating verbatum” [25]. At that time oral techniques may have formed part of the education of such poets. The Akkadian epic tales which recount the great and mighty heroic deeds of those kings also show that they were handed down in poetic circles for centuries.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The reason why this is of importance to us is that the ancient history may originally have been handed down in the same way. Although this tradition was probably first written down in Old Babylonian times (the time of Abraham) (as is reflected in the close correspondence with the Sumerian King List), the material for this may have come from a long oral tradition. This is exactly what happened with the Akkadian epic tales; they were also handed down since Akkadian times and were only written down in the Old Babylonian period. </span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The Biblical expression "written on their hearts" reflects this strong oral current in Hebrew circles which may have survived for a long time as Koert van Bekkum writes: “Met het gebruik van de uitdrukking 'schrijven in hun hart' maakt Jeremia tekst gebruik van een bekend beeld in het oude Nabije Oosten waarin het uiteindelijke doel van heel de scholing werd verwoord: het uit het hoofd kennen van de teksten, ingewijd worden in een traditie en ernaar gaan leven” [26]. One may suggest that the difference in literary styles between the ancient history and patriarchal stories reflects the oral nature of the material used for the first in contrast with the second which was written down during the lifetime of the patriarchs themselves.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">At this point, we find that we have good reasons to think that the ancient tradition originated from Semitic circles in Sumer and was first written down in Old Babylonian times. The patriarchal story of Abraham also reflects the world of that time and its oracular nature strongly suggests that it was first written down during the lifetime of Abraham himself. Given the fact that Ur was a city of great learning, we may assume that Abraham was educated in the Sumerian scribal tradition and that he or people in his entourage wrote down the source material which was later used to write the Book of Genesis. One may suggest that the recurrent reference to the "(books of) the generations of" (Gen. 2:4a; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10,27; 25:12, 19; 36:1,9; 37:2) refers to various source documents used in this regard.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>Who wrote the Book of Genesis?</b></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This brings us in the final instance to the question of authorship. When we want to gain some insight into this, we have to take a closer look at the way in which the author reworked the source material. What was his special concerns and how did he make use of his sources to present his own view of the world? Traditionally the book had been ascribed to Moses to whom God is said to have revealed Himself with the name Yahweh. The use of the divine name "Yahweh God" (or just: Yahweh) throughout the book is consistent with this view. Since this name belonged to a long Hebrew tradition, this, however, does not on its own establishes the authorship of the book. (Some Biblical Criticism scholars used the reference to "Chaldees" in Genesis 11:29, 31 which dates from the time of the exile to support their view but this is clearly the hand of a late editor).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">We can start with the creation story in Genesis 1. When we carefully consider this story, we find that the author used motifs typical to the ancient worldview (of Sumerian origin) and rearranged them into a new pattern – into six creation days plus a Sabbath (presented as six periods of creation and one of rest). He did this to establish a divine model for the practice of keeping the Sabbath as a day of rest (Gen. 2:2-3). This practice – to write a creation story which served as the model for cult practice – is found all over the ancient Middle East. This strongly suggests that the purpose of the creation story was not to serve as some kind of polemical text but rather as an argument for keeping the Sabbath when it was first introduced.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Now, although the seven day week was known in the ancient Ur III period (~2100-2000BC) and later in Canaan as one can see in the Ugarit texts (~1400-1200 BC), the Sabbath always played a very central role in Israel. The one person who is indissolubly connected with introducing the practice of keeping the Sabbath is Moses. Keeping the Sabbath is part of the ten commandments which Moses is said to have received from God (Ex. 34:27, 28). So, the most logical time when one expects that this kind of argument would have been made in Hebrew context is when the Sabbath was first introduced. And since Moses is so closely associated with introducing the Sabbath, we may with good reasons think that he was the author of the Book of Genesis as is traditionally held.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There is other evidence which supports this view. The garden story ends with God Himself making clothes for Adam and Eve from animal skins to replace their fig leaves. This would have involved the slaughter of animals (Gen. 3:21). In fact, in the story of their sons Cain and Abel, we find that the right kind of sacrifice is clearly stated to be one of animals - not an offering of the fruit of one's labour which symbolizes one's own effort. Now, as is the case with the Sabbath, we find that God's example (at the time of the "beginning" of known history) is used to introduce the right kind of sacrifice which is consistent with that of Mosaic tradition. Again, the divine model serves as the basis for cultic practice.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There is, however, more to this. The author did not merely introduce animal sacrifice as a way to please God, he also presents this in contrast with the events of the preceding garden story. In the garden story God is depicted as rejecting the practices that are grounded in shamanism - practices like those ascribed to Balaam (which is also placed in the time of Moses) which involved enchantments (Num. 24:1; although such practices also involved sacrifice that was not in the manner required by God). The story of Balaam does, in fact, show some correspondence with the garden story: both, for example, involves a speaking animal (donkey; typical of the shamanistic experience), the idea of "opened eyes" as well as some kind of secret knowledge available to the initiates (Gen. 3:5; Num. 24:16).</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">We find this rejection of occult practice throughout the Pentateuch. Instead, God requires certain animal sacrifices like those which Moses is said to have introduced into Israelite practice after the exodus during their time in the desert. The story, therefore, serves to confirm the validity of the Mosaic ceremonial laws (see also the story in Numeri 25 where these two kinds of sacrifices are explicitly presented in opposition to each other!). Such a context of writing would constitute a strong argument that the Book of Genesis was indeed written early as has been traditionally accepted.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In this essay, our concern is with the trustworthiness of the Abrahamic tradition. If this story is a true reflection of historical events, then we expect that Abraham's origin in Sumer would be reflected in the ancient history - which is presented in the book as the prehistory of that family. And this is exactly what we found. There cannot be any doubt that the book had been influenced at its very core by the Sumerian world.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This Sumerian influence is visible in the many Sumerian motifs found in the creation story, in the garden story as well as the style and content of the rest of the ancient history. The author(s) - not the one who finally wrote the book, but those who wrote the source material - clearly worked within the ancient Old Babylonian milieu in which the ancient Sumerian ideas dominated. Of particular importance is the fact that the ancient history reflects a valid reconstruction of ancient Sumerian tradition (which cannot be accounted for without assuming some kind of continuous tradition), that this ancient history is in accordance with Sumerian literary tradition as found in the Sumerian King List and that there is absolutely no Mesopotamian material whatsoever included which date from the post-Abrahamic period <i>per se</i>.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">We also found that Abraham's story includes information which cannot be explained except in terms of a trustworthy tradition going back to those events themselves. There is no other possible way that the author could have known about the Elamite incursion into northwestern Syra or the other details given in the story. This conclusion is consistent with the nature of the Abrahamic tradition which includes many oracles as well as the story which brings them all together. This way of presenting history is typical of the Akkadian tradition - and the one later found at Mari. Given the fact that such oracles were typically written down shortly after they were revealed, one cannot but come to the same conclusion regarding the Abrahamic oracles. If these were written down at that time (as this evidence suggests) then the trustworthiness of the material is easily explained.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">One may ask: Why is the Sumerian information in the Book of Genesis never presented by scholars supporting the Babylonian Hypothesis in the unified way that I do in this essay? Why do such scholars follow an <i>ad hoc</i> approach trying to explain these features - always assuming that it cannot be true! I think this is an example of the deep bais in Biblical Criticism circles against the Bible which goes back to modernist times. <i><b>The fact is: They cannot explain the things discussed in this essay in any coherent way within the Babylonian Hypothesis</b></i>. It is time to finally reject the misguided efforts of such scholars and accept the Abrahamic tradition as trustworthy in every possible aspect that we are able to test given the restricted nature of our available evidence [27].</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/03/does-creation-narrative-of-genesis-1.html">Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?</a></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/04/part-1-can-we-still-believe-bible.html">Part 1: Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective.</a></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/07/adam-and-eve-were-they-first-humans.html">Adam and Eve: Were they the first humans?</a></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/03/the-garden-of-eden-was-it-real-place.html">The Garden of Eden: Was it a real place?</a></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5] The only known geographical reference to Aratta that is found outside the early Sumerian literature, comes from the account of Sargon II of Assyria's eight campaign. He travelled through the well-known seven mountain ranges across the northern Zagros where he finally arrived at a river called Aratta. This places the land of Aratta (the Biblical Ararat) near Mount Sahand in northern Iran. It is possible that the holy mountain of Aratta with its garden served as the basis for later Sumerian tradition since some of those royal families (such as the one who ruled at Uruk) traced their descent from this very land.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[6] In an ancient text called <i>Gilgamesh and Humbaba</i> (from the Ur III period), we read that the heroes Gilgamesh and Humbaba travelled across seven mountain ranges before they found the beautiful cedar which grew near (or on) the mountain of the gods. These "seven mountain ranges" were, however, not on the way to the Amanus mountains in the west but on the journey to the distant land of Aratta to the north of Sumer (the Biblical Ararat) - which means that this theme had been taken from that tradition and reapplied to the Gilgamesh legends. These seven mountain ranges are referred to in the legends told about an early king of Uruk, named Enmerkar, who ruled during the last part of the fourth millennium BC. His servant travelled through the seven mountain ranges to the land of Aratta beyond the Zagros mountains. In the <i>Gilgamesh Epic</i> of later tradition, Gilgamesh and his friend Enkidu travelled to the distant west.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[7] Whereas the cherubim are depicted with four different faces in Ezekiel, we find in Ezek. 10:14 that the ox face is called that of a cherub. As this is in conflict with the rest of Ezekiel's text and does not appear in the Septuagint, we cannot take this as normative.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[8] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/02/the-origins-of-satan-ancient-worldview.html" target="_blank">The origins of Satan: the ancient worldview</a></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[9] Dalley, S. 1998. <i>The Legacy of Mesopotamia</i>. Oxford: Oxford University.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="goog_41072076"></a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="goog_41072077"></a> <span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[10] <a href="https://www.blogger.com/">The Serpent of Paradise</a></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[11] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/04/the-ancient-history-of-genesis-4-11.html" target="_blank">The "ancient history" of Genesis 4-11: Myth or history?</a></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[12] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/08/the-great-flood-did-it-really-happen.html" target="_blank">The Great Flood: Did it really happen?</a></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px;">Traditionally, Biblical Criticism scholars believed that the Biblical story of the deluge originated from the Akkadian <i>Atrahasis Epic</i> which dates from ca. 1700-1600 BC. In their view, a copy found at Ras Shamra on the North Syrian coast dating to ca. 1300 BC shows that the text was known in Canaan at an early enough data to be incorporated into the J flood story (in accordance with the Documentary Hypothesis). No complete copy of this epic has, however, been found and those copies that we have, lack the crucial sections for comparison. This has led some scholars to propose that the Genesis flood story - which they date to the exilic or post-exilic periods - was taken either from the 11th tablet of the <i>Gilgamesh Epic</i> (which was a late addition to that epic) or Berossus's <i>Babyloniaca</i>. Again, the problem is that these versions of the deluge show crucial differences with the Biblical one. In my view, the Hebrew and Babylonian versions of the story go back to a common original tradition in Sumer which was handed down separately within the Abrahamic family and in Babylonian circles. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[13] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/06/who-is-elohim.html" target="_blank">Who is Elohim?</a></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[14] Shortly after the time of Abraham, the god Marduk usurped the role of king of the gods to become ruler of the Babylonian gods. After that time the character of Enlil was slandered in Babylonia. There is, for example, the story of his banishment to the Western mountains in which he is depicted as having sexual relations with the goddess Ninlil. This story was clearly taken from the opposing Enki milieu as Michalowski [15] has shown (Enki was the father of Marduk). Marduk was later worshipped by the Canaanites as Baal. In both the Babylonian and Canaanite traditions he is presented as a rebel who led an insurrection against the king of the gods to become king himself. As such his role as king of the gods was never accepted in Israel. Instead, this rebel-leader in the council of the gods was called Satan, which means “adversary”, in the Biblical tradition. The figure of Satan is clearly old and cannot be understood apart from the ancient concept of the council of the gods [8, 13].</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[15] Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1977. Inuma Iiu awilum, in Maria de Jong Ellis (ed.). <i>Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts & Science</i> Vol xix. Hamden: Archon Books.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Michalowski, Piotr. 1996. The Unbearable Lightness of Enlil, in J. Prosecky (ed.). <i>Intellectual Life of the Ancient Near East</i>, papers presented 43e Rencontre assyriologique Internationale.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[16] Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1976. <i>The Treasures of Darkness</i>, p101. New Haven: Yale University.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[17] Mullen, E. Theodore. 1980. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. Chico (California): Scholars Press.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[18] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/06/a-critique-of-biblical-criticism-as.html" target="_blank">A Critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline</a></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[19] In South African context, Jurie le Roux is one of the main proponents of the view that the Abraham story dates from after the exile. He has propagated this view in various essays in the official publication of the Theological Faculty of the University of Pretoria (see TEO </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px;">27/05/2016</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">). He always quotes Biblical Criticism scholars that agree </span>with<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"> his view - all of whom dogmatically accepts </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">the Babylonian Hypothesis. </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px;">If one accepts the Babylonian Hypothesis then this is the obvious outcome. If one rejects that context, then everything changes! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">In Le Roux's (long-discredited) modernist and positivist perspective, the lack of sufficient evidence for a historical Abraham (in his opinion) is evidence that there was no historical Abraham! He might have remembered how the scholarly consensus that Dawid was not a historical person was overturned by the discovery of the Tell Dan Stela on which mention is made of the "House of Dawid". </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">Le Roux mentions an essay by Joseph Blenkinsopp, </span><i style="font-family: "times new roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">Judaeans, Jews, Children of Abraham</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"> (2011), in which the latter takes the usual Biblical Criticism stance that the Biblical authors "invented" their stories for all sorts of </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">"necessary" reasons and then resorts to remarkable intellectual acrobatics to argue that the Abraham story was invented after the return from exile. For these scholars one thing stands above all others: The Biblical narrative can under absolutely no circumstances be true! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[20] Van de Mieroop, Marc. 2005. <i>King Hammurabi of Babylon</i>: a biography. Oxford: Blackwell.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[21] Hoffmeier, James K. 2008. <i>The Archaeology of the Bible</i>. Oxford: Lion Hudson.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[22] Kamrin, Janice. 2009. The Aamu of Shu in the Tomb of Khnumhotep II at Beni Hassan. <i>Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections</i> 1(3):22-36.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[23] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/02/presenting-new-ancient-middle-eastern.html" target="_blank">Presenting a new ancient Middle Eastern chronology</a></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[24] Various court prophets are mentioned in Hebrew tradition as the ones who wrote down the oracles as well as the story which tells the context in which that happened. Among these were Samuel (I Sam. 10:25), Nathan (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); Gad (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 29:25), Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29), Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15), Iddo (2 Chr. 12:15; 13:22), Elijah (2 Chr. 21:12), Isaiah (2 Chr. 32:32) and others. The author of the Chronicles of the Hebrew kings mentions the histories written by Samuel (from the time of King Saul), Nathan and Gad (from the time of King David), Ahijah (from the time of King Solomon), Shemaiah and Iddo (from the time of King Rehoboam), Elijah (from the time of King Ahab) and Isaiah (from the time of King Hezekiah). One cannot but see this as a continuation of the ancient Semitic tradition in which such prophets wrote down the oracles as well as the context in which they were revealed. It also strongly suggests that the historical data in those histories is trustworthy.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[25] <span lang="af-ZA">Hallo, William & Van Dijk, J. J. A. 1968. </span><span lang="af-ZA"><i>The Exaltation of Inanna</i></span><span lang="af-ZA">. New Haven: Yale University.</span></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span lang="af-ZA">[26] Van Bekkum, Koet. 2013. Schrijven, schrijvers en auteurs in de oudheid, in Van Bekkum, Koet;</span> <span lang="af-ZA">Van Houwelingen, Rob & Peets, Eric (Red.). </span><span lang="af-ZA"><i>Nieuwe en oude dingen. </i></span><span lang="af-ZA">Barneveld: Vuurbaak.</span></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span lang="af-ZA">[27] One of the great problems with Biblical Criticism scholars is that they take no evidence as positive evidence of the negative which according to them "proves" that the literary tradition about Hebrew history is untrustworthy (see [19] above]. One of the contemporary culprits is Israel Finkelstein who is accused by </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px;">Nadav Naaman</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"> of using the "not-found ergo </span>does-not<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"> exist" principle (BASOR 317:2). This reflects a basic lack of understanding by a whole generation of scholars (deeply influenced by the long-discredited modernist roots of the discipline) regarding the nature of disciplines such as textual studies and archaeology (for a detailed discussion, see [18, 28]).</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span lang="af-ZA">[28] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/08/a-critique-of-archaeology-as-science.html" target="_blank">A Critique of Archaeology as a Science</a> </span></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The author has written a book on the Sumerian roots of the Bible (<i>Abraham en sy God</i> (Griffel, 2012)) and is a scientist (PhD in Physics; MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></span> <span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Readers are welcome to share this essay.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-69287285324771907112018-02-05T07:02:00.000-08:002019-07-16T06:43:20.964-07:00The Christian and Evolution<i>In this essay, I engage with the problem of evolution. For many Christians, neo-Darwinian evolution is anathema. They think that goes directly against the Christian view that God created the universe as well as all the biological diversity within it. So, should Christians merely assert their opposition in this regard or are there solutions which allow for some kind of reconciliation with science in this matter? I present an alternative perspective based on the biological model developed by Immanuel Kant in his </i>Critique of the Power of Judgment<i> which may serve as an alternative to the neo-Darwinian model. I also show that some models in contemporary quantum biology show a remarkable consistency with Kant's view which supports the Christian perspective of God as Creator.</i><br />
<i><br /></i> <a href="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/511gslFsYRL._SX325_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="Image result for darwin origin of the species" border="0" height="400" src="https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/511gslFsYRL._SX325_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg" width="261" /></a>The question of evolution is one that generates strong feelings among many Christians. Although there are some Christians - especially academically inclined ones (such as those from BioLogos) and those belonging to Biblical Criticism - who accepts the role of neo-Darwinian evolution within God's plan, most Christians think that the basic assumptions of this theory go directly against the Christian tenet that God created all things. The reason for this is that the mechanism which drives evolution according to neo-Darwinism, namely natural selection in cohort with random variation, is basically a random process which goes directly against the idea that all creation be viewed as part of God's great purpose. If things happen randomly, it seems that God is excluded from the process. Although one may argue that God works (in a mysterious way) through such an evolutionary process, the randomness thereof seems to exclude purpose which is indissolubly linked to God's role as Creator.<br />
<br />
So, even though I think that one cannot expect Christian scientists to disengage from the dominant (biological) theory of the day, it is nonetheless also true that it is very difficult to incorporate neo-Darwinism within the Christian perspective. This leaves us with the question: What are the alternative options for Christians considered in scientific terms? (This would be the question of any Christian scientist such as those from BioLogos!) Christians who believe that the earth is young (such as those from Answers in Genesis) will merely say that God directly and purposively created everything during the six solar days of creation about 6000 years ago (for a detailed discussion of this view, see [1, 2]). This is obviously in direct conflict with science and very few Christian scientists of respectable standing (especially in the natural sciences) would seriously consider that as an option. Another possibility is given by those Christians who accept that the earth is old (and accept a scientific theory such as that of the Big Bang). Some of them (such as those from Reasons to Believe, Discovery Institute or the Biologic Institute) think that God intervened directly at various points in the evolutionary process when he created the species, for example, during the Cambrian Explosion 544-530 million years ago (for a detailed discussion, see [2, 3]).<br />
<br />
Both Young and Old Earth Creationists reject neo-Darwinism. The first group does so in principle whereas the second group think that other related evolutionary models which accentuate discontinuities in the fossil record, such as "punctuated equilibrium" (which rejects the graduality of neo-Darwinism), could be reconciled with the idea of God's purpose in creation. Since "punctuated equilibrium" (or related models) cannot provide an adequate mechanism to explain those gaps, these Christian scientists and philosophers of science make their own proposal in this regard, namely that God intervened during these periods to create the species. Some of them present their view of direct divine intervention (not all such Christians have particular views in this regard) as a scientific hypothesis called Intelligent Design. I discussed the book <i>Darwin's Doubt</i> (2013) written by one of its proponents (Stephen C. Meyer) elsewhere [3]. As I see it, the Intelligent Design hypothesis conceptualizes the "design events" - when evolutionary "explosions" such as the Cambrian one took place - too much in human terms. Also, one may suggest that a natural mechanism may eventually be discovered which does not only explain the "jumps" in the evolutionary process but which is also in line with divine design (see below). Many secular scientists regard this hypothesis as little more than "creationism dressed up in pseudoscientific clothing" although these Christians would obviously disagree.<br />
<br />
One may, therefore, ask: Are there not any other alternatives? In an essay on this blog I previously suggested that neo-Darwinism is an incomplete theory which would in time be replaced by theories which are more in line with the Christian way of thinking [3]. Neo-Darwinism, for example, did not traditionally include quantum physics in its explanation and as such presented mere mechanistic solutions (which is incompatible with "creation"). This has changed dramatically over the last decade with the coming of age of the new scholarly field of quantum biology. At that time (in 2014) I made a proposal [3] based on my reading of Kant's philosophy of science in his <i>Critique of the Power of Judgment</i> (called the third <i>Critique</i>) which is consistent with a new biological model which has recently been presented (in 2016), namely of homogenomic evolution [4].<br />
<br />
In this essay, I present a more detailed version of my proposal (which is also found in my Master's thesis and published work [5]) and show how it corresponds to the mentioned biological model. Making use of Kant's theory makes sense since the interest in his work had made a dramatic comeback in academic circles over the last few decades and his philosophy of science had been shown to be consistent with current scientific thinking [6]. As such, I argue that although God may have intervened throughout history in the process of evolution, he had already built the blueprint which allowed for the unfolding evolution of all life into his design of the cosmos when he created it in the beginning. We may interpret homogenomic evolution (which to a large extent replaces neo-Darwinian evolution) as being consistent with Kant's model and therefore consistent with the purposiveness (i.e. teleology) that Christians ascribe to God. Although homogenomic evolution has obviously not yet become the dominant model in scientific circles (it had only recently been presented as a serious alternative) there can be no doubt that the new ideas associated with quantum biology are changing the field in a way that is much more in line with Christian thinking!<br />
<br />
I start the discussion by first giving a short overview of the Biblical creation narrative in the Book of Genesis showing that it is consistent with such a scientific view (even though the text was obviously not written with a scientific perspective in mind! - see [1, 2]). Then I present my interpretation of Kant's scientific model of biological evolution in the third <i>Critique</i>. Thereafter I show that this is consistent with homogenomic evolution and more specifically as presented by William B. Miller Jr. in his recent essay <i>Cognition, Information Fields and Hologenomic Entanglement: Evolution in Light and Shadow</i> [4]. In the same way that Old Earth Creationists accepts the Big Bang, we can now more generally accept such scientific theories as consistent with the Christian viewpoint. This means, that at last, biology joins physics as a field that Christians do not have to view with antagonism as they usually do. In general, I think that this will also make it easier for Christians to accept the scientific evidence for the age of the cosmos.<br />
<br />
<b>The Biblical perspective</b><br />
<b><br /></b> Although most Christians regard the creation narrative given at the beginning of the Book of Genesis as important for understanding God's plan for man, not everyone thinks that it is relevant to contemporary debates about origins. Some Christians (such as those from BioLogos and those from Biblical Criticism) accentuates the fact that the book should be viewed within the ancient context in which it was written which stands totally apart from contemporary concerns. I accept that this is true but at the same time think that the Biblical account could not be in direct conflict with science (insofar as scientists make an honest attempt to understand God's creation) when we accept that it is divinely inspired (I discuss these issues in some detail elsewhere [1, 2]).<br />
<br />
In the creation story of Genesis 1, we find that God is said to have created the cosmos in six "days" which had become a major stumbling block for many unbelievers who regard this as being in direct conflict with science (especially as interpreted by the Young Earth View). Although I cannot discuss this in any detail here, I can mention something very basic which goes against such an interpretation of the text, namely that it makes absolutely no sense that God created things on the first, second and third solar days if He created the sun only on the fourth day! In this case, there would have been three solar days without the sun!<br />
<br />
This should not be regarded as a stupid error by the author (see [1]) but as implying that we should read the text in another way, namely that the "days" refer to longer periods (as is found in Gen. 2:4). We know this since the author also mentions that God made the sun and the moon (and the stars) on the fourth day as signs regulating "seasons, days and years" (Gen. 1:14). This means that solar days (!!!), the four seasons and even solar (and lunar) years only made their appearance on the fourth "day" of creation! This is actually consistent with the sun being made on the fourth creation day. This obviously strongly suggests longer periods of creation which is also consistent with contemporary science. (Why would one want to hold to an interpretation which is so diametrically opposed to all science if it is not really necessary?)<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Image result for Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel sun, moon and stars" height="295" src="https://i.pinimg.com/originals/35/c8/8e/35c88eec50147981a9d22ed448ebbd73.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">God creating the sun, moon and stars - Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
When we now take a closer look at God's creative acts during this period, we find something interesting. The phrases "God made" and "God created" (Gen. 1:21, 25) are used in the same breath as ones which state that He ordered the earth and the waters to bring forth all the many species of plants and animals (Gen. 1:11, 20, 24). Why this ambivalent description? How could the earth or waters produce the species? They seem to have been the milieu within which the species were produced. But this suggests that the process of creation - which is described as evolving from simple to more complex life forms - may have been more nuanced than Christians usually think and may have included some element of spontaneous production/evolution within the framework of God's grand design. This also means that the creation of the species (and even mankind; Gen. 1:26) could have happened through some process of theistic evolution even though not the neo-Darwinian one. At the very least, one could say that there is no reason to categorically exclude some form of theistic evolution on textual grounds.<br />
<br />
This brings us to God's creation of humans. The creation of humans is mentioned twice, namely in the creation story (Gen.1-2:4) as well as in the garden story (Gen. 2:5-3) (which I do not regard as another creation story [1]). According to the creation story, <i>'adam</i> (mankind; which is not a personal name!), which includes male and female, was created during the sixth creation "day" whereas the central personage of the garden story, which is later called Adam, was created at the time when God planted the garden in Eden. The inclusion of both male and female persons in the expression <i>'adam</i> (mankind) is nicely expressed in Genesis 5:2 where we read: "<i>male and female created he them, and called their name 'adam, in the day when they were created</i>." So, one can interpret this as saying that the human species was created sometime during the sixth "day" of creation, long before Adam's time. As such humans may have been around for a very long time before the arrival of Adam on the scene (nothing in the text is against this reading).<br />
<br />
One should also note that the metaphoric use of the image of God as potter in the garden story should not be taken literally in the same way that the story of Eve's formation from Adam's rib in the same story is not to be taken as such (the problem of the fusion of metaphorical and literal motifs is typical in such ancient religious texts and confuses the modern mind - one may assume that these literary tools were not well distinguished and developed as such at that early stage [7]). The author of the garden story based the story of Eve and the rib <i>on a well-known story from the ancient Middle East </i>which he adapted for his purposes (for a detailed discussion of these points, see [2]). There can therefore not be any doubt that he never intended it to be taken literally! There is, therefore, also no reason to think that Adam was made from clay! Once we allow that <i>'adam</i> be distinguished from Adam (see above), there is no reason to think that Adam was the first human ever created.<br />
<br />
The view that Adam and Eve were not the first humans is supported by other textual evidence. We find, for example, that reference is made to people living outside the area of the garden of Eden - who are described as people who may have felt the impulse to kill Cain (Gen. 4:14). Where did these people come from? Now, it seems that the author took it for granted that there were people outside the garden - other humans who were not previously introduced in our story except in the context of <i>'adam</i>. So, taken in this way, we can accept that the Biblical text is not in conflict with science. The earth can be very old (the Bible gives us no clue how long the days of creation were) and humans may be hundreds of thousands of years old as both archaeology and DNA data proves. Why would one insist on reading the text in a way which is in direct conflict with scientific evidence if there are other viable readings (in accordance with good hermeneutics) which are consistent with science?<br />
<br />
More generally, there is still one outstanding issue. We may accept that the earth is very old (billions of years) as are humans (about 200 000 years) but the question remains whether one species developed from another? Did God create each species anew or did they evolve out of each other (a process in which God may have been actively involved)? The evidence suggests the second option. As scientists from BioLogos have mentioned [8], the history of the species includes a common ancestry which <i>includes not only healthy genes but also broken ones</i>. This strongly suggests that those genes were inherited from previous less-advanced species (and that God did not create each species anew - He would obviously not have created broken genes!). This is evidence for theistic evolution but not for neo-Darwinian evolution.<br />
<br />
All of this implies that we can easily accept the Biblical narrative of creation as being consistent with science (insofar as the age of the earth and possibly even some form of theistic evolution are concerned). There is absolutely no good reason the insist on interpretations of the Biblical text which go directly against science. In fact, one can argue (as I do) that this is by far the better interpretation of the Biblical text (since it accounts for all the nuances of the text). As such, we may explore scientific models which are consistent with the Christian view that God's creation reflects his purpose. Such models should be in line with a teleological (purposive) reading of the unfolding biological development of the species.<br />
<br />
One of the greatest philosophers (of science) of all time who developed such a model is Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) whose model in this regard never found a wide audience because of the popularity of the evolutionary model of Charles Darwin (1809-1882) (similar to the discovery of genes by Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) which stayed in obscurity for many years because scientists thought that Darwin (who knew nothing about genes (!)) said it all). I will now discuss Kant's model of biological evolution.<br />
<br />
<b>Kant's model of biological evolution</b><br />
<br />
In the period before Immanuel Kant's time, Isaac Newton (1642-1727) had published his famous work on classical mechanics and there were questions as to how such a mathematical science could be placed on solid epistemological grounds (that is, be taken as objective knowledge). Kant tackled this problem in his (also) famous <i>Critique of Pure Reason</i> (1781) in which he showed that we can only obtain "objective" knowledge if our conceptual structures (our theoretical model) could be synthesized with sensible intuition (empirical data) (allowing for a determinate "truth" judgment in this regard). When we cannot obtain empirical data of something (say, of God Himself) then we can also not know if such a thing exists. This does not mean that such things do not exist - it merely means that we as humans are very much restricted in our ability to know things about the cosmos especially if such things fall outside empirical reach [9] (such as we find nowadays in the case of quantum entities during the pre-measurement phase).<br />
<br />
Kant presented his scientific model in two works, namely in <span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;">his </span><i style="text-indent: 0.63cm;">Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science</i><span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;"> (1786) which laid the philosophical foundation for Newtonian science and in his <i>Critique of the Power of Judgment</i> (1790; in the second part called </span><span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;">Critique of the Teleological Power of Judgment</span><span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;">) which focussed on biology. His work regarding Newtonian science had since been extended in a manner consistent with contemporary scientific theory (where Einstein's work was also greatly influenced by Kantian thought!) [6]. Kant's work also had a great influence on Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. His work on biology is what concerns us here. </span><br />
<span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;"><br /></span> <span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;">Kant observed that there are certain "products of nature" like organisms for which an explanation in purely mechanistic terms (which is all that was allowed in Newtonian science as well as in Darwin's theory) does not seem to make sense. He proposed that we have to go beyond merely mechanistic explanations even though we cannot prove that to be the case. As such, he proposed a teleological approach in which our world is taken <i>as if</i> it is designed and which allow for two kinds of causal processes, namely mechanism as well as one that is spontaneous (called teleology). This does not mean that Kant asserts that our world is designed (that cannot be proven since it goes beyond our empirical means) but merely that science has no choice but to work under a guiding principle according to which the world is regarded <i>as if</i> it is designed (otherwise science which searches for "laws" of nature would not be possible). Within this guiding principle, Kant suggests that there are two possible kinds of causality which produce everything in nature, namely the mentioned ones of mechanism and teleology. </span><br />
<span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;"><br /></span> <span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;">Kant produced a biological model which incorporates these ideas. This is a model that proceeds beyond "objective" knowledge (as we find in Newtonian science - exploring possibilities beyond the confines of such knowledge) to allow for "regulative" ideas which serve merely as hypotheses even though they may be beyond direct empirical confirmation. In this regard, Kant allows that our world may include not only "nature" (this Kantian concept should not be confused with our contemporary concept thereof) ruled by mechanism but also a supersensible substratum of nature which is ruled by a spontaneous causality which Kant conceptualized as a "natural purpose". Kant formulated this last one as a kind of causality which allows for non-extended "wholes-and-parts" (i.e. which lay beyond proper space/time and which may be regarded in some sense as "designs/plans") to produce material "parts" belonging to aggregated wholes in nature through a self-organizational process. Natural purpose as a causality has a capacity or potentiality to produce effects within observable nature. In his view, the two effective causes of mechanism and natural purpose (teleology), taken together, may explain the possibilities of organisms in a way that mere mechanism cannot. </span><br />
<span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;"><br /></span> <span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;">In the context of biological evolution, Kant proposes that</span><span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;"> the “maternal womb of the earth” had an original purposiveness without which the "possibility of the purposive form of the animal and vegetable kingdoms cannot be conceived at all" (CPJ 5:420). He proposed a theory of evolution according to which one species could have evolved through adaptation into another. The alterations which species could undergo and then successfully pass on can be judged as "purposive potentialities" which were originally present in the fundamental constitution of the species (CPJ 5:419-20). This means that through natural purpose we can see new species - which incorporate the less-complex features of previous species - becoming realized within the world. In Kant's view, we can see this unfolding grand design within the cosmos within the context of God's intentional act of creation even though this can obviously not be proven (as discussed above).</span><br />
<span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;"><br /></span> <span style="text-indent: 0.63cm;">In my work, I show that these Kantian ideas find their application in quantum physics [5]. The Kantian idea of "nature" (as a system governed by mechanism) is consistent with our "classical world" where Einstein's theories of relativity apply (i.e. within proper space-time). The Kantian idea of a supersensible realm finds expression in the "quantum world" and all the necessary characteristics (conditions) for the first are confirmed (satisfied) in the second [5, 10]. Kant's idea of a natural purpose finds expression in the reduction of the wave packet - during which superpositions of states (consistent with Kant's wholes-and-parts) are realized as outcomes in observable nature (the particular range of possible statistical outcomes reflects the Kantian idea of material "parts" belonging to "aggregated wholes"). A detailed discussion of this is beyond the scope of this essay but is presented elsewhere [5].</span><br />
<span style="text-indent: 23.811px;"><br /></span> <span style="text-indent: 23.811px;">In a previous essay on this blog (in 2014) I suggested that this reading of the Kantian biological model of evolution may at some stage find its equivalent within contemporary quantum biology. I wrote: "</span>It is possible that we will eventually find that evolution has a quantum component, i.e. that leaps in biological evolution have their grounds in the quantum world where they would arguably seem to be at home." Such a model has now been presented which describe the "leaps" in biological evolution which produce new species in terms of quantum potentialities which are realized in biological phenotypes (i.e. its observable characteristics).<br />
<br />
<b>Homogenomic evolution</b><br />
<br />
Before commencing with this discussion I freely admit that I am not a biologist. As such, I do not try to explain all the nuances of this evolutionary theory. I am only interested in its obvious correspondence with the Kantian model described above. I am also not going to discuss this model of evolution within the wider context of biological studies but am only concerned with it as presented by William B. Miller Jr. in his recent essay <i>Cognition, Information Fields and Hologenomic Entanglement: Evolution in Light and Shadow</i> (2016, [4]).<br />
<br />
What is homogenomic evolution? This theory of evolution focusses on the cellular level in its evolutionary conception. It works with the principle that individual cells and other life forms (which is where the term "homogenomic" originates) can engineer solutions to environmental stresses and that these <i>are more important than natural selection as the primary impulse of evolutionary development from the origin of life onward</i>. As such, the embedded information within "Pervasive Information Fields" (PIF's) which operate on the cellular level, enables a natural and self-organizing cellular engineering process to solve problems, allowing new phenotypes to emerge. This rejects the idea that random mutational variation within a generally static central genome can produce such phenotypes. As such it becomes a competing model for neo-Darwinism.<br />
<br />
The role of quantum processes stands central in this model. As such this self-organizing evolutionary process is seen as rule-based, not in a mechanistic sense, but in accordance with the principles of quantum physics. The PIF's are taken as being governed by superimpositions of biological possibilities (that is, as an overarching field) which may be expressed as phenotypic forms. Miller writes: "Therefore, at any moment of time, current biological form is the setting of the superimposition of possibilities from a larger dominant unicellar eukaryotic information set as temporary manifestation of a narrow range of specific information subsets". Selection is only the "temporary settling of a range of implicates [possibilities] within the PIF of that master Eukaryotic cellular domain as an information subset of latent potentials resolved into biological explicates [expressions]". In this model, genes are not merely "units of inheritance" but an emergent expression of "information space" which is reciprocally dependant upon cellular processes as well as information inherent in bioactive molecules and extrinsic epiphenomena (sources of information which lay beyond the genes).<br />
<br />
So, what we find is that PIF's have "purposive potentialities" (if we may use Kant's expression) which are <i>expressed through the adaptation to new phenotypes</i>. They include both "the sum of the histories of the field" (the product of their evolutionary history) as well as the "summation of the latent potentials to meet environmental stresses" which may trigger their particular expression as phenotypes. These PIF's are even taken by Miller as some kind of "bauplan" which defines any form of life. This corresponds to the Kantian idea of such potential "designs/plans" being realized through natural purpose. As such Kant's idea of natural purpose is very much what Miller describes through his concept of the PIF's ability to realize its potential possibilities (with wholes-and-parts being realized as material "parts" which belong to an aggregated whole, i.e. the phenotype). Miller even says that "there is room within contemporary evolutionary biology for creativity [that is, through the "settling of ambiguities"] and determinism" which comes very close to the Kantian idea that both teleology (which operates through natural purpose) and mechanism are necessary to explain organisms.<br />
<br />
In the final instance, it seems that Miller's model of homogenomic evolution can be viewed as a contemporary version of the Kantian evolutionary model (although cells play no role in Kant's model, life forms do) which accommodates elements of neo-Darwinism (natural selection) as well as Mendels' discovery of genes (both of which came after Kant's lifetime). What is particularly important, is that although this evolutionary process includes some random elements, it is primarily a "well-designed" one which Christians can without reservations accept as consistent with and expressing God's purpose.<br />
<br />
As such, Christians can accept that God embedded his purposive design within the world at the time when He first created it (which may have been through the Big Bang) and that this had been unfolding through time as a process of theistic evolution. Throughout the ages, He would have been guiding this process, allowing particular adaptations to develop at certain periods (as God is beyond time, there is presumably no preference with him for long or short periods of time). Christians would also believe that God was especially closely involved in the evolutionary process which produced humans which were created in the image of God Himself (a process of which we still know very little at this stage).<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
In this short essay, I discuss the problem of evolution. Most Christians cannot accept that neo-Darwinian evolution is consistent with God being the creator of the universe. They have consistently rejected neo-Darwinism as a scientific model that represents a true reflection of the process of evolution (or as reflecting divine creation, more generally). They are now vindicated in this reservation with the radical new direction that scientific evolutionary theory had been taking over the last decade and especially with the emergence of the new field of quantum biology! Suddenly, we find that new evolutionary models are being proposed which are very much consistent with the Biblical worldview.<br />
<br />
I have not merely argued that homogenomic evolution is consistent with the Christian perspective. I have also shown that it is consistent with an old evolutionary model which was first proposed by Immanuel Kant in his third <i>Critique</i>. I have previously shown (on this blog and elsewhere) that Kant - who was a Christian and whose philosophy is consistent with the Christian worldview (see [11]) - had been vindicated in most aspects of his regulative metaphysics. His idea of the supersensible realm had long been rejected as untenable but we now know that it is consistent with the quantum realm. He was obviously far ahead of the people of his time and even those of many generations to come!<br />
<br />
Now Kant is even vindicated in his theory of evolution which is suddenly much more relevant than Darwin's original ideas which would probably have gone out of fashion long ago (natural selection does, after all, seem to be a mere tautology!) if it was not for certain scientists whose dogmatic stance about natural selection enforced a mechanistic view of the world (why do we not speak about neo-Mendelism since he discovered genes?). But that time is forever gone with the coming of age of quantum biology! A new era has arrived. One in which Christians are much more at home!<br />
<br />
[1] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/03/does-creation-narrative-of-genesis-1.html" target="_blank">Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?</a><br />
[2] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/07/adam-and-eve-were-they-first-humans.html" target="_blank">Adam and Eve: Were they the first humans?</a><br />
[3] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/09/darwins-doubt.html" target="_blank">Darwin's Doubt</a><br />
[4] Miller, William B. 2016. Cognition, Information Fields and Hologenomic Entanglement: Evolution in Light and Shadow. <i>Biology</i> 5(2) 21.<br />
[5] Mc Loud, Willem. 2015. <i>Introducing a Kantian Interpretation of Quantum Physics, in accordance with Kant's Philosophy of Science in the </i>Critique of the Power of Judgment<i>, reinterpreted and reworked with special attention to the supersensible realm.</i> Masters thesis. Cape Town: UCT.<br />
A more expanded essay was published as <a href="https://www.academia.edu/38283361/Kant_Noumena_and_Quantum_Physics" target="_blank">Kant, Noumena and Quantum Physics</a> in <i>Contemporary Studies in Kantian Philosophy 3</i> (2018) (94 pages).<br />
[6] Friedman, M. 2001. <i>Dynamics of Reason</i> (Stanford: CSLI Publications).<br />
[7] Shusman, Gregory. 2009. Conceptions of the Afterlife in Early Civilizations. London: Continuum.<br />
[8] Giberson, K.W. & Collins, F.S. 2011. <i>The Language of Science and Faith</i>. London: SPCK.<br />
[9] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/11/science-and-spiritual-realm.html" target="_blank">Science and our restricted human understanding</a><br />
[10] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/11/science-and-spiritual-realm.html" target="_blank">Science and the spiritual realm</a><br />
[11] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/science-and-metaphysics-in-search-of.html" target="_blank">Science and metaphysics: in search of Russel's teapot</a><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)<br />
The author is a scientist (PhD in physics) and philosopher (MA in philosophy of science). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy and eschatology.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-75258290576635775452017-12-06T00:00:00.000-08:002019-08-05T00:14:29.155-07:00Die Christen en die Markplein<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Ek bespreek 'n onlangse artikel in </i>The Economist<i> asook my eie ervaring van die sosiale media as gespreksforum.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Ek
het oor die afgelope 7 jaar verskeie essays op my blog gepos oor die
uitdagings wat Christene vandag in die oë moet kyk. Ons samelewing
het onherroeplik verander en baie van die metodes wat ons vroeër
gebruik het om die evangelie met ons medemens te deel werk nie meer
nie. In 'n donker wêreld waarin al meer mense geen sin in die lewe
sien nie, is die evangelie van verlossing deur die bloed van one Here
Jesus Christus so broodnodig. Maar hoe sal ons andere bereik?</span><br />
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">One
kan die plek waar ons met mense te doen kry en waar ons met
hulle in gesprek gaan, die "markplein" noem. In
die ou tyd het filosowe soos Sokrates op die markplein met mense
gesels en Paulus het dieselfde gedoen toe hy in Athene was. Deur die
eeue het die "markplein" 'n meer uitgebreide konsep
geraak waarin alle soorte media gebruik word om met ander persone in
gesprek te tree. Ons kan inderwaarheid van die "markplein van
denke" praat – dit is die ruimte waarbinne denke
oor allerlei dinge met mekaar uitgeruil word.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEjEXj1b2I0UpEyu7t8EhzaKuynGbDBBGT2QXVo12pxteNeHQVnxcAZJc7WRVsqfGxhaixid2myzSYpC8pCow2wRjEQsB_kymJsv9WVqcUtyBJKxDjCTcX0sDIcIQns0ZDLwUI_WZQ0flmyQHcvGjtpUvZMb2pxv1RHdmBTqdSKKt4beyT4t5YfmZ9NZlktZrrbz259yIv0=" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Image result for market place ancient painting" border="0" src="http://media.worldbookonline.com/image/upload/f_jpg,w_468,c_limit/content/lr001642.gif" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Die antieke markplein</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In
ons tyd het sosiale media tot een van die belangrikste forums vir
gesprek ontwikkel. Alhoewel ander mediums steeds belangrik is –
wat natuurlik eposse en sulke elektroniese media insluit – het
sosiale media platforms soos Facebook en Twitter 'n totaal nuwe
ruimte vir gesprek geskep. Of so sou 'n mens dink. In 'n onlangse
uitgawe van <i>The Economist</i> (11-17 November 2017)
waarin die nuuste bevindinge oor sosiale media as gespreksforum
bespreek word, word hierdie gedagte egter in twyfel getrek. Ek
gaan in hierdie essay kortliks die implikasies van hierdie artikel in
die lig van my eie ervaring bespreek.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Sosiale
media</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Navorsing
wat oor die afgelope 10 jaar gedoen is toon dat die sosiale
media 'n baie negatiewe effek op gesonde en oop gesprek gehad het.
Waar mense vroeër baie meer genuanseerd gedink het en daar
heelwat gemeenskaplikheid was, is een van die belangrikste uitkomste
van sosiale media dat dit mense in opponerende kampe verdeel wat 'n
radikale standpunt teenoor mekaar inneem. Mense luister nie meer
na ander standpunte nie – hulle stel gewoon net in hul eie siening
belang. Dit sluit aan by die gedagte van 'n post-waarheid era
waarin daar 'n ongemak is met die "waarheid" insoverre dit
van iemand se siening verskil. Daar is dus al minder plek vir eerlike
en oop gesprek waaraan mense met intergriteit deelneem. Alhoewel
die artikel in <i>The Economist</i> op politiek in die
VSA fokus, is dit duidelik ook waar van die godsdiensfront.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx">
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Ek
kan hier uit ervaring praat. In my gesprekke
met ateiste en agnostici (in baie verskillende
forums) op Facebook, is ons bewus dat daar baie
mense is wat die geprek volg. Die gevolg is dat deelnemers soos in
'n Romeinse arena die impuls ondervind om op enige
moontlike wyse goedkoop punte te behaal en om ten alle
koste te wen. Voor so baie toeskouers kan die deelnemers dit nie
bekostig om gesig te verloor deur te toon dat hulle onseker is of nie
antwoorde het nie. Daar is dus geen plek vir eerlikheid, openlikheid
en 'n soeke na ware antwoorde nie. Soms sal persone doodeenvoudig net
aanhoudend memes (kort slagspreuke) of skakels pos
sonder om werklik met die kwessie voor oë in gesprek te gaan.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Wat
ek ook vind, is dat daar sekere mense of Facebook is wie
se ondersteuners soos 'n span wolwe op jag is om enige persoon
wat verskil of 'n ander mening het aan te val en te beledig. Ek het
'n tyd gelede (op 4 Augustus) nogal deurgeloop nadat ek 'n ope brief
aan Jean Oostuizen geskryf het (en op my en sy fb muur gepos het)
waarin ek beswaar gemaak het teen die wyse waarop 'n gas in
sy program "Uit 'n ander hoek" die Bybelse God beledig [1].
Soos ek dit in my skrywe aan Jean gestel het, het ek geen probleem
dat diegene soos hy wat agnosties is 'n geleentheid kry (soos alle
ander gelowe) om op die SAUK oor hul geloof te gesels nie: "As
jou program suiwer daarop ingestel was om 'n agnostiese geloof te
bely sonder om die Christelike geloof te betrek (is so iets
moontlik??) soos al die ander gelowe doen en poog om verdraagsaamheid
en respek teenoor ander gelowe te bevorder, sou dit 'n ander saak
wees". </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
Persone
wat my van geen kant ken nie het my dramaties aangeval en
beledig. Sommige het my karakter probeer swartsmeer en selfs van my
familielede op Facebook aangeval. Daar was geen poging om werklik oor
die inhoud van die brief (wat reguit maar in 'n goeie gees geskryf
is) in gesprek te gaan nie – eerder net om 'n wanvoorstelling
daarvan te maak asof ek vir Jean in persoon sou aanval.
Alhoewel ek Jean nog altyd as 'n gawe persoon geken het (in soverre
ons per geleentheid in dieselfde geselskap saam was), het hy geen
moeite gedoen om my besorgdheid aan te spreek nie maar het hy my
eerder van "fundamentalisme" beskuldig (ek is konserwatief/behoudend maar soos die essays op my blog toon is ek beslis nie
"fundamentalisties" nie) en in gesprekke aan mense genoem
dat my teologie verdag sou wees (ek veronderstel dat 'n agnostikus
soos hy in 'n goeie posisie is om my "teologie" te
beoordeel).</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Hierdie
optrede maak dat Christene baie versigtig is om hul nek uit te steek.
Daar is 'n kondisionering deur vrees wat tot gevolg het dat Christene
nie by sulke gesprekke wil betrokke raak nie. En ek kan dit verstaan.
In sommige gevalle is diegene wat vir my opgekom het ook so
swartgesmeer en hul karakter en familie op Facebook beswadder.
Duidelik gaan dit lankal nie meer oor integriteit en "oop"
gesprek nie – dit gaan slegs om die opponent te probeer
vernietig. Ek het wel die feit dat so baie Christene die brief
met andere gedeel (geshare) het waardeer – dit 'n effektiewe manier
om ons stem te laat hoor. Voorts moet ek ongelukkig erken dat
Christene ook soms so sonder liefde op Facebook optree en in die verlede die
narratief probeer beheer het (soos in die Apartheid tyd toe die NG
kerk dit vir ander Christelike denominasies en groepe baie moeilik
gemaak het om hul stem te laat hoor). Baie onder ons het vandag nog
letsels omdat hulle destyds selfs nie werk kon kry as hulle nie 'n
brief van 'n NG predikant kon toon nie! </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Wat
Jean se program betref, is daar ook 'n klagte by die uitsaaiowerheid
ingedien. Alhoewel ek dink dat die klag nie baie goed geformuleer was
nie, was dit nie vir my vreemd dat daar in Jean se guns beslis is
nie. Hy het inderdaad nie self die godslasterlike stellings gemaak
nie [1]. Dit was een van sy gespreksgenote. Tog is die program voor
die tyd opgeneem (wat aan die SAUK tyd gegee het om op regstellings
aan te dring) en Jean het ook niemand op die program gehad wat
bekwaam was om die Christen saak te midde van sulke aantygings te
stel nie (en dit terwyl die Christelike geloof baie direk en radikaal
daarin aangeval is). <i>Daar is by my geen twyfel dat die SAUK
nooit sou toelaat dat soortgelyke dinge oor die Moslem geloof gesê
word nie!</i> So, dit lyk vir my ons is nou in 'n era van
dubbele standaarde: die SAUK kan as forum gebruik word om die
Christen standpunt aan te val maar nie die Moslems nie!</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Die
toekoms</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Ek
dink ons as Christene moet aanvaar dat die establishment media lankal
nie meer vir ons vryelik toeganklik is nie. Tydskrifte en
koerante soos <i>Rapport</i> dans gewoon na die pype
van ateiste wat aggressief en aktivisties die openbare narratief
probeer beheer. Dit beteken dat ons toegang tot die openbare media
baie beperk is. Ook op sosiale media probeer hierdie aktiviste die
narratief beheer. Hulle aggressie toon dat hulle hoegenaamd nie in
enige "oop" gesprek belangstel waarin 'n baie beter
narratief as hulle sin op die tafel geplaas kan word sodat mense self
hulle opinie kan vorm nie. Die kenmerke van sulke interaksies ('n
mens kan dit seker nie meer "gesprekke" noem nie) is woede,
onverdraagsaamheid, haat en 'n totale onwilligheid om met integriteit
na ander persone te luister.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Is
dit hoe die toekomstige markplein daar gaan uitsien? As die
samelewing al meer in sulke kampe verdeel en die Christen stem
stilgemaak word in die openbare media, dan staan ons in 'n baie
nadelige posisie en gaan die ateiste oënskynlik maklik
veld wen. Of gaan hulle? Ek dink dat daar by baie mense 'n groot
ongemak is met sulke negatiewe en barbaarse optrede. 'n Dogmatiese en
ideologiese benadering maak dat mense (ateiste en Christene!)
alle morele waardes prysgee om hul doelwit te bereik – maar daar
is steeds baie mense wat nooit met 'n narratief wat sulke
optrede goedpraat en verdedig gemaklik sal wees nie. Ek glo dat daar
ook baie ateiste en agnostici is wat sulke optrede ten sterkste
afkeur maar dit lyk ongelukkig of die sondebokke grotendeels in hul
kader val (ek praat nie hier van net een voorval nie - alhoewel dit 'n
mooi voorbeeld is - maar van verskeie gesprekke waaraan ek deelgeneem het waarin soortgelyke dinge gebeur het).</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Wat
van die toekoms? Ek dink dat gesprekke oor godsdiens al minder op
sosiale media gaan voorkom en dat forums vir daardie doel uiteindelik
gewoon die skape en bokke in hul kampe gaan verdeel. Ek dink ook nie
debatte is die antwoord nie. Alhoewel dit impas by die huidige
markplein as 'n gevegsone, dink ek nie dat rasionele argumente die
geveg gaan wen nie. Hierdie tipe gesprekke het 'n
sterk emosionele ondertoon en dit reflekteer 'n
samelewing met baie innerlike wonde en seerkry.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Soos
ek dinge sien sal ons as Christene op veral twee vlakke
moet opleef tot die eise van ons tyd. Ten eerste sal ons moet besef
dat ware Christenskap altyd impliseer dat ons Christus se liefde moet
uitleef. Christenwees is om 'n gekruisigde lewe te lei – dit is 'n
lewe wat volkome aan Christus oorgegee is. Dit beteken dat ons
ook bereid is om vir ons Meester op te staan en te ly soos ons lees:
"Salig is julle wanneer die mense julle beledig en vervolg en
valslik allerhande kwaad teen julle spreek om My ontwil. Verbly en
verheug julle omdat julle loon groot is in die hemele: want so het
hulle die profete vervolg wat voor julle gewees het" (Matt.
5:11-12). Dit beteken nie dat ons dwaas moet optree in 'n
vleeslike ywer nie; ons moet altyd onder die leiding van die Heilige
Gees beweeg.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Ten
tweede beteken dit dat ons as Christene op ander vindingryke
wyses die markplein sal moet betree. Ons sal meer onder mekaar moet
praat oor hierdie kwessies [2]. Ons sal baie meer moet
saambid. Ons sal te alle tye Christus se liefde moet uitleef. En ons
sal moet volhard om met integriteit aan gesprekke deel te neem. Dit
gaan nie daaroor dat ons al die oplossings moet hê nie (al kan ons
baie goeie antwoorde gee!) maar dat ons met eerlikheid en integriteit
met ander in gesprek gaan oor die wonder van verlossing in Christus.</span></div>
</div>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[1]
In "Uit 'n ander hoek" op Sondag 6 Augustus 2017 op SAUK
uitgesaai. Pienke: “... Hoe iemand wat rampspoed skep [i.e.
God] aan moraliteit gekoppel kan word, is vir my onbegryplik.
Moses en Josua, wat in opdrag van God optree, al die oorlogsmisdade,
die slagtings, die honderde duisende vroue en kindertjies
doodgesteek, doodgekap, slawerny en menslike offerhandes,
verkragtings, die verdierliking van vroue, die ongebore babas wat uit
vroue se baarmoeders uitgesny word en dan is daar nog daardie
wreedaard, Abraham, wat so waar as wragtig amper sy eie kind se keel
afgesny het. <i>Al hierdie gruwelikhede word aan religie
gekoppel en WEL aan die Skepper daarvan, naamlik: die Abrahamitiese
God van die Bybel</i>." [My beklemtoning]</span></div>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[2]
Lesers is welkom on hul gedagtes oor hierdie dinge met my te deel
by ws.mcloud@gmail.com</span></div>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Skrywer:
Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span></div>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Lees ook: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/01/towards-dialogistic-approach.html" target="_blank">Towards a dialogistic approach</a></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.worldbookonline.com%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Ff_jpg%2Cw_468%2Cc_limit%2Fcontent%2Flr001642.gif&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/proxy/AVvXsEjEXj1b2I0UpEyu7t8EhzaKuynGbDBBGT2QXVo12pxteNeHQVnxcAZJc7WRVsqfGxhaixid2myzSYpC8pCow2wRjEQsB_kymJsv9WVqcUtyBJKxDjCTcX0sDIcIQns0ZDLwUI_WZQ0flmyQHcvGjtpUvZMb2pxv1RHdmBTqdSKKt4beyT4t5YfmZ9NZlktZrrbz259yIv0=" -->Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-78764291428409346852017-11-05T22:29:00.000-08:002018-07-05T03:36:04.261-07:00Revival is of the Lord<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6109" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 13px;"><i>Most Christians are familiar with the idea of a spiritual "revival". I believe that what is needed today is a true revival in which God pours out His Spirit on His church. In this short essay Arjan Baan of the Netherlands gives some guidance about this very important issue.</i></span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6117" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6117" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6116" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">This study deals with the blessings of revival or regeneration and about the conditions needed to see such a revival happening. About this subject is also much more to say than we can discuss in this essay. Therefore the advice is to study the Bible and church history to find out more about the times in which the Spirit of God worked in miraculous ways. Your heart will start burning in you when you hear and read about the mighty works of God and the great revivals that have taken place and still take place.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6150" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6147" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6146" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">First, we want to emphasize that you cannot separate revival and prayer. There will be no revival in your church if there is no prayer.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6144" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7872" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">To pray effectively for revival one should know what revival is and what it is not.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6119" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6121" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">Revival is not:</span></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6142" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7874" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">– a special meeting with a special guest speaker</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6140" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8002" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">– an (evangelism) campaign, accompanied by all kind of special miracles and signs</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7877" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7876" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">– a special healing service or a great conference</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6138" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8004" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">– a special youth service or a special music concert</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6136" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7879" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">– a good Sunday morning service.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6123" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6134" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7881" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">Revival is much greater, deeper, wonderful and more blessed!</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8006" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6132" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6131" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">The word revival or regeneration means renewal of life/resurrection. Here some statements of preachers who experienced a revival:</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6125" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6127" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_6129" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">1. Revival is the reawakening of believers of the church. There can only be revival where there is life. It is necessary that this life will be rekindled again.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">2. Revival is the revelation of God in His holiness and irresistible power.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8009" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8008" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">3. Revival is a renewed awareness that God is holy and a renewed consciousness how terrible sin is.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">4. Revival is a time of refreshment in the presence of the Lord.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">5. Revival is a community of believers who are immersed in God.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7884" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7883" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">6. Revival is the flow of godly life in a body that is endangered to become a corpse.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7887" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7886" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">7. Revival is God's sovereign act to open the floodgates of heaven in His great mercy and bless His children abundantly so that the streams of living water can flow through them to unbelievers.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">8. Revival is that God the Father is going to reveal His Son more clearly to all believers.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">9. Revival is giving the Lord Jesus Christ the authority and honour He deserves.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">In other words, revival is:</span></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">a. the extraordinary work of the Spirit of God by whom sleeping believers, whose life is arid and dry, come to renewed life again. (Ez. 37:1-10)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">b. the habitation of God in His church, by which His presence and glory are intensely experienced. (Isaiah 64:1-5)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">c. an extraordinary work of the Spirit of God, by which God's people undergo a deep purification in regards of specific sins. (Mal. 3:1-4)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">d. an awakening of many unbelievers, caused by the burning hearts and frank testimonies of revived believers.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;">Who needs revival and why?</span></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">In the first place, revival is necessary for the people of God (Ps. 85:7), known as believers. When believers receive renewed devotion to the Lord, the world will become aware of this and share in the blessing. The blessing will flow to the world around us. If God’s people really experience revival, it will be used by God to bring sinners into a new life.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">Revival is necessary for the following reasons:</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">1. Without revival, churches will lose their spiritual power more and more. They will slowly have less attendance or die spiritually.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">2. Without revival, Jesus will not be glorified. Worldliness, sin and indifference will increase.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">3. Without revival, churches do not have any attraction and many will not be reached with the Gospel and be lost forever.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">4. Without revival, we cannot show the world in an undeniable way that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the only way to God and that He has risen from the dead. (1 Kings 36-39)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">5. Without revival, churches will be without prayer.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;">Of Whom revival comes</span></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">Revival comes from God (Ps. 85:7): “<i style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">grant us Thy salvation</i>”. It doesn’t come from prominent preachers or leaders. One cannot plan, organize or support revival. Revival doesn’t arise by applying a certain method. The Bible points out obstacles and hindrances for revival. Also how they could be taken out of the way. Nevertheless, God is sovereign to grand or not grand revival.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">Hindrances to revival are:</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"> 1. Lack of humility and no confession of sins (Jer. 29:12, 2 Chron. 7:14)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"> 2. Lack of fearless Spirit-filled preaching (Eph. 6:19) </span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"> 3. Lack of continuous prayer (Matt. 21L13, Luke 11L13, Marc 9:29)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"> 4. Lack of faith (John 7:37, Hebr. 11:6, Matt. 21:21, 22)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"> 5. Lack of true Spiritual life (John 6:63, John 4:23, 24, Matt. 15:8)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"> 6. Lack of emphasis on sanctification (2 Cor. 7:1, Hebr. 12:14)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"> 7. Lack of humility and mercy that makes one honest and sincere (Rev. 3:17)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;">When to expect a revival</span></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">We can expect revival when we are willing to pay the price for it. We can find this price in 2 Chronicles 7:14:</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<i style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">‘If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">.’</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">In this verse four things are highlighted:</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">a. Humble yourself. Bow for God, confess your sins and faults, surrender yourself to Him and die to your old self.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">b. Praying. Pray continuously and persistently, in private as well with others.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">c. Seek God’s countenance. Live in continuous communion with the Lord.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">d. Repent from wicked/bad ways. Restrain yourself from sins, live holy for God, obey God’s Word in all areas of life.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7908" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7907" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">In times prior to revival, we see in the Old and New Testament and in church history that God calls men and goes a certain way with them. The disciples walked with Christ for three years. The same we see with men of God who are used for His glory. If you want to become a powerful instrument in God’s hand, allow the Lord to go His way with you. Before He gives revival, He will search for men, women and young people who have totally committed themselves to Jesus Christ’s dominion. These are people who cannot trust their own power and knowledge anymore. They have died to their own plans and dreams. When believers purify their hearts, they will first experience personal revival. And if they start to pray that the Spirit of God will work again like in Acts 4, revival will come. All revivals are the effect of persistent prayer! The spiritual need became pressing…</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7908" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<i style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"> (Acts 1:14a).</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7911" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7910" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">God looks for people whom He can use as leaders: people who have fully surrendered to Christ, who are willing to live a holy and pure life and who have started praying. These are also the people who continue in prayer until the power of God will start working with new strength. This can be at school, university, church, youth club, prayer community or where ever… Praying for revival is a difficult task because by nature we like to hurry things. We should not think a new revival will take two or three months of prayer. Of course, it might be so, but the history of the church shows that often it takes a long time of prayer for revival.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7911" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7915" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<i id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7914" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7913" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"> </span>(Math.18:19, 20).</div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7918" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7917" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">There is an incredible power in a small group of people who pray for revival. Do not get depressed if you start to pray and it seems the prayer will not be answered. Keep on praying, because a very prayer that comes from the heart and is purified by the blood of Jesus will be answered in one way or another. In Luke 18:1-8 Jesus tells a story to make clear that you should continue praying until He answers.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7920" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7922" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="https://apis.mail.yahoo.com/ws/v3/mailboxes/@.id==VjJ-gTPepUnHyurtIZIu1-kYO8oku_YUqStdb3YWgw1JKUTsSLg-wdAKOpmaR4mbmhE6/messages/@.id==AFzS2goAACOkWduTZASfmG1byHg/content/parts/@.id==2/thumbnail?appId=YahooMailNeo&downloadWhenThumbnailFails=false&pid=2" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="william-booth3" border="0" height="266" src="https://apis.mail.yahoo.com/ws/v3/mailboxes/@.id==VjJ-gTPepUnHyurtIZIu1-kYO8oku_YUqStdb3YWgw1JKUTsSLg-wdAKOpmaR4mbmhE6/messages/@.id==AFzS2goAACOkWduTZASfmG1byHg/content/parts/@.id==2/thumbnail?appId=YahooMailNeo&downloadWhenThumbnailFails=false&pid=2" width="400" /></a><b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;"></span></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7922" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></b></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7922" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></b></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7922" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></b></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7922" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></b></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7922" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></b></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7922" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></b></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7922" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></b></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7922" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></b></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7922" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></b></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7922" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></b></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7922" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></b></b></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7922" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; font-size: 14pt;"><br /></span></b></b></div>
<b style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">Marks of Revival</b><br />
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">A true revival always has these marks:</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7925" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7924" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">1. God reveals Himself in glory and holiness. (Is. 6) This leads to a deep and serious conviction of sin in His children. (Acts: 2:37, 19:17) They start to confess their sins and get their lives in order. This is the most prominent sign of a revival worked by the Holy Spirit.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7928" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7927" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">2. Believers become, after they have purified themselves, powerful and gloriously filled with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:14, 4:31)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7931" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_7930" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">3. Through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the name of Jesus will be magnified. (Acts 19:17) People will not say: “Where is your God” anymore. There will be a great joy in the church. (Acts 2:16, 8:8, 13:52, 15:3)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">4. Great numbers of unconverted people will be saved, sometimes without any human interference (Acts 6:7) and sometimes even large cities. (Acts 9:35) Every day, people will be saved. (Acts 2:41-44, 5:14, 6:7)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">5. During revival one comes to true obedience to God's word. (Acts 4:18-19, 5:27-29) Believers are willing to totally submit to and bow for the entire Word of God.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">6. A great hunger for God and His word arises. (Acts 2:42-46, 19:9)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">7. There are unity and love among all believers. (Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-37)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">8. Believers are filled with zeal for evangelism and an urge for missions. (Acts 4:33, 8:4, 11:19-20, 19:8-10, 8:25-40, 9:32) The gospel is spread rapidly. (Acts 12:24, 13:44-49, 19:10, 20-26, 21:20, 2 Thess. 3:1) This is because younger and older people are passionately anointed by the Holy Spirit.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">9. Believers become passionate and fearless in giving their testimonies. They testify everywhere. (Mark 16:20, Acts. 5:28, 8:4, 21:28, 22:15) They testify without end. (Acts 4:20, 5:42, 14:19-21). Nothing can stop them: no threat, whipping or imprisonment. (Phil. 1:14) They testify every day. (Acts 5:42, 17:16-17) And they testify frankly. (Acts 4:13)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8018" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8020" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">10. The Word of God appears to be what it really is: a hammer, fire, water, balm, bread, honey, a mirror and it will conquer! (Acts 19:20, Hebr. 4:12, 2 Thess. 3:1, Acts 12:24, Isaiah 55:10-11, 1 Thess. 1:5, 2:13). The gospel appears to be what it really is: a force of God to save. (Rom. 1:16) The Word becomes irresistible. (Acts 7) It conquers sin, evil forces, false lessons, unbelief, doubt and opponents of the gospel.</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8018" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; background-color: white; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="color: #444444;"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8015" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px;">11. There will be resistance from settled and lukewarm churches. From church history, we know that revivals took regularly place outside the 'big churches'. Often these revivals are considered with suspicion or are even slandered and opposed. </span>(Acts 4:18, 19:9, 23:14)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8016" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; display: block; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #444444;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8016" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; display: block; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #444444;">Arjan Baan </span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8016" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; display: block; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #444444;">Evangelist (MA Theology)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8016" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; display: block; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #444444;">Sliedrecht</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8016" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; display: block; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #444444;">The Netherlands</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8016" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; display: block; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #444444;">email: a.baan@filternet.nl</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8016" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; display: block; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #444444;">(Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span></div>
<div class="yiv9201281246MsoNormal" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1509947926516_8016" style="-webkit-padding-start: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; display: block; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="color: #444444;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #444444;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444;"><br /></span>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-56479055045121984522017-10-04T02:04:00.001-07:002019-07-02T05:02:48.740-07:00Science and spiritual intuition<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>In this essay, I engage with the question: Is spiritual awareness or intuition possible? I argue that such an awareness may be conceived of as a real possibility within the context of quantum physics. This continues my presentation of a Judaeo-Christian worldview which ascribes a spiritual dimension to our world. </i></span><br />
<div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The ancients believed in spirits and gods as well as some kind of spiritual intuition or awareness which connects humans with such entities. In ancient societies, spiritual guides were assigned the role of establishing contact with that world [1]. Within the Judaeo-Christian view, the Spirit of God, as well as all sorts of spirits, are operative in that world. Although communication with all spirits, including the spirits of the dead, were prohibited, they believe that God's Spirit through some kind of spiritual intuition was able to "move" the Hebrew prophets in their writing of the divine Scriptures. Traditional Christians also believe that God "speaks" to them through His Spirit in their daily lives. In general non-religious people and atheists do not believe in the spiritual world (spirit world), soul (spirit) or spiritual intuition.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The basic question seems to be: How would we know whether the spiritual realm, spirits and spiritual intuition (awareness) exist? Since these are outside the reach of our sensible intuition (and by extension, empirical confirmation), there is no way to "prove" the existence of any of these. What is possible, however, is that in the progress of science these would in time become accessible in the context of <i>indirect</i> empirical studies within the context of quantum physics.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Although scientists do not have empirical access to the (pre-measurement) quantum realm - once measurement takes place the entities no longer exist in that kind of quantum mode which belongs to the "quantum realm" - they have various ways to indirectly establish whether particular things exist in that realm and one may suggest that all of the above may in time come within the reach of scientific inquiry. Although there would be various metaphysical interpretations regarding such observations, the view presented here would at least have the advantage that such predictions were made beforehand. This implies that we may develop this conceptual framework into a viable hypothesis that can be brought within the scientific domain.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In my view, the existence of the spiritual realm, spirits and spiritual intuition together present the basic ingredients of a spiritual worldview in which about all religious people believe (although I work from a Judaeo-Christian perspective, these concepts are not particular to Judaeo-Christianity). I previously suggested that we use the Kantian metaphysical conception as the point of departure - using it as a theoretical model or hypothesis that may be tested insofar as the study of such things becomes possible in the framework of science [2].</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In this regard, I showed that Kant's noumenal realm, which was based on the corresponding Platonic conception, originally went back to the spiritual realm [3]. In line with this perspective on the noumenal realm, Kant situates the soul in that realm and calls it the "noumenal self" [4]. I showed that all the characteristics of this realm have been confirmed in the context of quantum physics [3] and also that we may conceptualize the Kantian soul in this context as a quantum body (existing outside proper space-time) [4].</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In this essay, I proceed in showing how another aspect of that ancient spiritual worldview, namely spiritual intuition, may be conceptualized in the context of quantum physics. Again, I use the Kantian metaphysics as the point of departure. Now, however, I move beyond the Kantian position which only incorporates sensible intuition (and not spiritual intuition) in his philosophy. I show how Kant's philosophical system may be expanded to include spiritual intuition and also how (as before) that may find an application in the context of quantum physics. As such I present a viable conception of such intuition which is in line with contemporary quantum physics. This may serve as working hypothesis guiding scientific research in this regard.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Spiritual intuition in philosophical tradition</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The idea of spiritual intuition or awareness entered Greek philosophical tradition as early as the 6th century BC in the time of the Pythagoreans (maybe even earlier). In their view, the "higher soul" is the seat of the intuitive mind and the "rational soul", which they considered secondary, is the seat of discursive reason (they also distinguished the non-rational soul, responsible for the senses, appetites and motion). For the Pythagoreans, the word "nous" ("mind") referred to an ability of the soul. As such it did not only had reference to an intellectual ability but also - and even more importantly - to some kind of intuitive apprehension or awareness of the invisible world.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Plato also understood the soul in such terms. Although Plato's view is often taken as merely referring to our intellectual understanding of the "invisible world" <i>of our thoughts</i>, he seems to have had a more basic kind of perception of such a world in mind. One should not forget that Plato mentions in the <i>Phaedo</i> - in the context of the dialogues between Socrates and his friends - that he takes the view of the mystic Orphics regarding such an invisible world as the point of departure for his own view of that world. In fact, one may assume that this was how the "invisible world" entered Greek philosophical thinking in the first place, i.e. as originating from the idea of the spiritual world [3]. As such Plato mentions that our perception of the invisible world is through the "eye of the soul", which seems to go beyond a mere conceptualization of such a world.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What happened in Platonic philosophy (even though the neo-Platonists always accentuated this mystic side), especially in later Western tradition, is that the noumenal world and the intuition that we as humans may have of it was collapsed into an intelligible world that is grasped intellectually in some way (through an intelligible intuition). Rationalists such as Rene Descartes (1596-1650) believed that our concepts originate in the Platonic forms that exist in that intelligible world. As such concepts were considered to be the only things that are truly real. That is why the rationalists discarded empirical data as untrustworthy.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), however, rejected this rationalist view. In his philosophical system, no intellectual intuition of that world is allowed for humans. In his thinking, only God can have such an intellectual intuition of things existing in the noumenal world. Humans only have access to the phenomenal world through their senses. They may think about things that may exist in a noumenal realm, but there is no way in which they may know that such things exist because they do not have an intuition that allows for that. Kant writes in his famous <i>Critique of Pure Reason</i> (called the first <i>Critique</i>) in a section called "Phenomena and Noumena": "room thus remains for some other sort of intuition... [but] we are acquainted with no sort of intuition other than our own sensible one" (B343). For Kant, all concepts must be synthesized with sensible intuitions for knowledge to become possible - and since humans do not have an intellectual intuition, the noumenal or supersensible world (if it exists) is totally unknown to them.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I showed in another essay [5] how the move in Western philosophy to collapse the noumenal into the intellectual and taking the noumenal intuition of early Greek tradition merely as an intelligible intuition has led to a divorce between the phenomenal and intelligible realms. When reason became enthroned, the possibility of some noumenal awareness of a supersensible realm was discarded. But is this correct? I argued that this was a reductionist move which did not allow for the extreme complexity of our human existence. As such I proposed that we may actually conceptualize how such an intuition is possible - even within the Kantian conceptual framework.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Kant developed a regulative metaphysics in which we may conceptualize what the world beyond our senses may be like - even though his conceptual view was not a dogmatic metaphysics. Such a metaphysics is not established through our understanding but through reason (in its regulative role) as a hypothesis. Although Kant's purpose with the first <i>Critique</i> was also to establish the limits of reason (and therefore the futility of the dogmatic metaphysics as presented by the rationalists) he also allowed for the legitimate use of reason beyond our sensible reach insofar as that is only problematically considered - as regulative ideas (guiding ideas).</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The question is how such noumenal intuition may be introduced within Kant's regulative conceptual system. Although Kant thought that we cannot conceive of such an intuition, he was not in principle against such a possibility. In fact, Kant <i>mentions that we cannot assert that no such intuition exists</i> (A255/B311). Kant just did not know how one may conceive of such an intuition in his philosophical system. Since then, our knowledge has increased a lot and another possibility that is compatible with his system did, in fact, open up. </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Noumenal intuition within Kantian philosophy</b></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In Kant's philosophy, all our interaction with the world takes place through our senses in which empirical objects are presented within space and time. For Kant, space and time are the basic <i>a priori</i> "forms" of our human sensibility and all sensible intuitions are given within these forms. As such, space and time are also the "forms" of appearances, i.e. the form in which appearances (in the phenomenal world) are presented to us as humans. Insofar as we perceive the world around us, all perceptions are always within the framework of space and time. So, how would one introduce noumenal intuition in the Kantian system?</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
Kant distinguished between the space and time as the forms of intuition - through which we experience the world - and space and time <i>as concepts</i>. Insofar as (geometrical) space and time are concepts, they may be applied to "empirical space" and time in the same way that concepts (in general) are applied to empirical intuitions in his system (which allows us to make a determinate judgement whether something is such or not). Empirical space refers to the way in which empirical objects determine the form of space through their magnitudes and relations (A431/B459). The same principle applies to time. </div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Many possible concepts of space may be constructed in this way and Kant did not restrict what he called "ideal" (conceptual) space/time in any way even though only Euclidean space was known to him. As such, there is no reason why his philosophy should not be compatible with non-Euclidean space (such as Riemannian geometry used in general relativity) or abstract Hilbert space used in quantum physics. In my view, we may rework the Kantian system to be compatible with general relativity or quantum physics (quantum field theory) when we introduce a space-time manifold in the context of his conception of ideal space/time. </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">We may think without contradiction of any possible abstract mathematical space or space-time which may apply to the noumenal realm - which may be conceptualized in correspondence with the quantum realm. In this regard, the quantum realm corresponds with Kant's noumenal realm which is also beyond empirical reach (see [3]). In this context, the Kantian conception of ideal space/time (as mere concepts) may be applied to the quantum realm even though that realm is beyond empirical access in its pre-measurement phase. </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
At this stage, I am only concerned with quantum mechanics. <i>The unique feature of quantum mechanics is that abstract Hilbert space is combined with proper time</i>. Within the Kantian system that would mean that ideal space (as an abstract space concept) is combined with proper time. Kant did not foresee this possibility, but there is no reason why such a concept cannot be introduced within the Kantian system. The question is: what are the implications of this for the Kantian way of thinking? How is the Kantian philosophy expanded through this reworking thereof? </div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
In the first place, this provides a way to bridge the gap between Kant's phenomenal and noumenal realms. The divide between these realms had always been a major drawback in Kant's philosophy since no human interaction with that realm is allowed in his system. The result was that this realm was reduced to a realm of belief - something that religious people believe in but which can never be confirmed or denied through science. In my reworking of the Kantian system, we do not only find a conceptual link between these realms (that they may be conceptualized as interwoven in certain contexts) but also that humans may have some kind of experience of that realm through noumenal intuition.</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
When we take the noumenal realm as the quantum realm, then from a quantum mechanical perspective this means that we may become aware of quantum entities insofar as these are presented within our time intuition (even though they are not presented in our space intuition). This would happen when our quantum bodies (souls) interact through quantum interactions with our natural bodies. We would be able to become conscious of such quantum interactions in proper time if humans have such an awareness.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Image result for god and man" src="http://www.lucascleophas.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/god-man.jpg" height="232" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">God and man connecting: Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel (1508-12)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Although we do not know at this stage if humans do indeed have such a form of intuition in line with the suggestion given above, it may very well be the case. This would mean that humans have another kind of intuition than the sensible one, which would allow for some kind of spiritual experience over and above our sensible experience. Insofar as we take the noumenal realm as our first interaction with the spiritual realm [3], this would constitute a spiritual intuition. </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Although I do not prove that such a quantum or spiritual intuition exists, I show how it may be conceptualized as a real possibility. In the Kantian conceptual framework, this may serve as a regulative idea (hypothesis) that may guide scientific research into this matter. Although this idea has to be presented within a detailed conceptual framework that includes both physical and quantum bodies, the basic idea underlying such interaction is quite clear. <i>As such this kind of intuition is no longer merely a vague idea that religious people believe in, but a philosophical concept that is consistent with contemporary science.</i></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Within the Judaeo-Christian worldview, this opens the door for an understanding of God's revelation in Scripture that is consistent with our scientific worldview. Although the details of God's working through his Spirit in the hearts and minds of humans would probably forever be beyond our human understanding, we may at least grasp how that is possible. </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In this essay, I focus on spiritual intuition. If we allow that our engagement with the quantum realm is, in fact, our first scientific step in exploring the spiritual realm and that humans may have a quantum body which compliments their physical bodies and which may continue existing after death, then it seems very likely that we as humans would have some kind of spiritual intuition that allows for some kind of communication between these two spheres. Although I did not present any proof at this stage that such intuition (or even spiritual bodies) exist, I do show how we may conceive thereof in the context of contemporary science. </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science has progressed a lot over the last two hundred years. Many of the things which Kant included in his metaphysics which was originally rejected as untenable - such as a noumenal realm governed by spontaneity instead of mechanism - have been confirmed in the context of quantum physics where determinism had been proven to break down. I believe it is just a matter of time before the existence of the soul as a quantum body which is somehow interwoven with our physical body, is also confirmed (albeit only indirectly - just like any quantum entity in its pre-measurement phase - since it is beyond the possibility of direct empirical confirmation). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">In the same way that the possible existence of a quantum aspect to our human existence (i.e. a soul) has become a viable scientific hypothesis, the possibility of quantum (spiritual) intuitions may be so the presented. Although the existence of such intuitions would be extremely difficult to establish, they would nonetheless in time come within scientific reach.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Notes</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[1] Today such persons are called "mediums". In my view, they, in general, do not interact with the dead but with the psyche of those who knew such persons. In this regard, they may actually use the kind of spiritual intuition that I discuss, but only in connection with living persons.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[2] Part 3 of this series</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[3] Part 4 of this series</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[4] Part 5 of this series</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[5] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/10/is-spirit-world-more-than-idea.html" target="_blank">Is the spirit world more than an idea?</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I previously argued in essays on this blog (before 2014) that Kant's noumenal realm finds its conceptual application in the framework of the higher dimensional realm theorized by theoretical physicists. Since then I have reworked that hypothesis into a more substantial position in which the quantum realm itself is taken as confirmation of Kant's noumenal realm. The second position is much stronger because it does not only involve the quantum realm as a reality (instead of the mere theoretical possibilities presented by quantum theorists) but also because higher dimensions are just one way among others in which the quantum realm may be conceptualized. </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[6] Prof. Brian Josephson has proposed that quantum entanglement may explain telepathy. Although this is by no means confirmed to be the case, it is nonetheless an example where a form of spiritual intuition is understood in the context of quantum mechanics. My reworking of the Kantian metaphysical framework provides a philosophical framework within which these things may be understood and studied. </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Dialoguer</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The author is a scientist and philosopher (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy and science.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science and God. Part 1: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/11/the-problem-of-spontaneity-in-quantum.html">The problem of spontaneity in quantum mechanics</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science and God. Part 2: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/03/science-and-our-restricted-human.html">Science and our restricted human understanding</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science and God. Part 3: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/science-and-metaphysics-in-search-of.html">Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science and God. Part 4: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/11/science-and-spiritual-realm.html">Science and the spiritual realm</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science and God. Part 5: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/03/in-defense-of-soul.html" target="_blank">In defence of the soul</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-21432315486559899802017-09-05T23:53:00.001-07:002019-08-01T06:17:00.943-07:00The Rapture: The different views<i>As so many times before, we are again hearing that the Rapture is about to take place! As such, it is appropriate at this time to reconsider what Biblical scholars mean when they refer to the "Rapture". There are various views regarding the timing of the Rapture within the broader framework of eschatological events, which I discuss. The important question is: Which view, if any, is correct? This the fifth essay in the series on Christian eschatology.</i><br />
<br />
Christians who are interested in eschatology (the study of the last things), usually have strong feelings about their own position. As such, it is not easy to discuss a topic such as the Rapture without some people taking exception. The purpose of this essay is, however, not to belittle other views but to present all the main views on the topic and then critically discuss them. Although some Christians may think that they "do not believe in the Rapture", they may be surprised to find that such an event (albeit without using this word) is indeed mentioned in Scripture. The question is, however, how do we understand such passages?<br />
<br />
The word "rapture" is derived from the Latin "rapere", which means "to take away". The most important Biblical passage about the Rapture is found in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 where we read: "For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (King James Translation).<br />
<br />
The Rapture refers to an eschatological event when the Church will be taken away from earth to meet the Lord in the air during his Second Coming. The rapture involves three aspects, namely 1) the living saints will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:17), 2) these saints will be transformed when they are "clothed" with "incorruption" and "immortality" (1 Cor. 15:52-3) and 3) those saints who have died in Christ and whom he will bring with him during his Coming, will be resurrected with glorious bodies (corresponding with those of the transformed living saints) (1 Thess. 4:16: 1 Cor. 15:35, 42).<br />
<br />
Now, if the Rapture is so clearly taught in Scripture, why all the fuzz? The reason is simple: The Rapture is often associated primarily with those who believe that this event can happen at any moment and who make predictions about the date when it will take place. They, however, represent only one group in the greater Christian community who believe in the Rapture. Others who also believe in the Rapture, see things differently. Christians have very different views regarding the meaning of Scriptural passages such as the one quoted above.<br />
<br />
There are, very generally speaking, two distinct views regarding the Rapture [1], which concerns the place of this event in the larger picture of future eschatological events. The first group of Christians believe that the Rapture will be a distinct event which will take place sometime before Jesus Christ comes during the great battle of Armageddon (seven years or three-and-a-half years or some days earlier). The second group believes that the Rapture would be part of one single glorious event when Jesus Christ returns. In some way, the first group believes in two Second Comings and the others in only one [2].<br />
<br />
Many of the Christians who believe in the Rapture, also believe that there will be a Great Tribulation in the period directly preceding the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. That would be the time when the final Antichrist appears, who would persecute the true believers. In this context, the first view is usually called the "Pre-Tribulation" Rapture View and the second the "Post-Tribulation" Rapture View. The first group believes that the Church will be raptured before the Great Tribulation whereas the second group believes that the Church will go through the Great Tribulation.<br />
<br />
In this essay, I discuss these two views. I present the textual evidence which is used by the different schools to support their view. Obviously, one cannot present all possible arguments in a short essay such as this but I do discuss the most important ones. I also present some criticism - insofar as applicable - of the way in which the Biblical verses are sometimes understood.<br />
<br />
<b>A Pre-Tribulation Rapture?</b><br />
<br />
The proponents of the Pre-Tribulation View present various arguments in support of their view, namely that Scripture teaches that the Rapture will happen when Jesus appears <i>for the Church</i> to take her with Him to heaven for a period before returning <i>with them</i> later during the great battle of Armageddon to establish his Messianic rule on earth. The period between the Rapture and the Second Coming (as these two eschatological events would henceforth be called) is determined by their understanding of a prophecy in the Book of Daniel (Daniel 9) which mentions a final period of seven years which they (and even many who hold to the Post-Tribulation View) take as referring to the final seven years before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. I discuss all the views on this prophecy elsewhere [3].<br />
<br />
The relevant prophecy in the Book of Daniel (henceforth, the prophecy of Daniel) is the one about the 70 "weeks" of years (i.e. 70 x 7 = 490 years) in Daniel 9. According to this understanding of the prophecy of Daniel, God had determined a period of 490 years over the people of Israel. This period is divided into two parts, namely one of 483 years (69 "weeks" of years) and one of 7 years (1 "week" of years) [4]. The first part commenced with the royal command to rebuild the city of Jerusalem after Israel had returned from their exile to Babylon and ended when the Messiah revealed himself as King to Israel (on Palm Sunday). This had been remarkably fulfilled [5]. The last part consisting of seven years has, however, not yet been fulfilled and will only be at the end of this era before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ during the battle of Armageddon.<br />
<br />
The classical Pre-Tribulation View believes that the Rapture will take place at the beginning of the final seven years. The Second Coming will happen only after that period has passed. In their view, this final period of seven years concerns God's plan with Israel and not the Church. The Church will, therefore, be raptured before the commencement of the final seven years. Another, more recent view, which is sometimes called the Mid-Tribulation View [6], believes that the Rapture will happen in the middle of this final seven years, i.e. 3 1/2 years before the end. Their arguments are also concerned with things mentioned in the prophecy of Daniel as well as their understanding of St. Paul's interpretation of that prophecy (in 2 Thess. 2).<br />
<br />
I start the discussion with arguments particular to the classical view and then proceed with other Scriptures which are used more generally by proponents of the Pre-Tribulation View.<br />
<br />
<b>1) The final seven years and Israel</b><br />
<br />
The classical Pre-Tribulation View takes the prophecy of Daniel 9 not merely as referring to events concerning Israel in the same sense as so many other such prophecies; they believe that this prophecy has dispensational significance. In the larger context of God's plan, he has established various dispensations of grace in accordance with his progressive revelation throughout the ages. Without going into too much detail, we can distinguish between the Adamic (both before and after the Fall), Noachite, Abramaitic, Mosaic, Church and Millennial dispensations during which God entered (or will enter) into various covenants with his people.<br />
<br />
In their view, the gap between the first 69 weeks of years (483 years) and final week of years (7 years) should be understood in terms of the Church era which commenced when Israel rejected Jesus as the Messianic King (in crucifying him) and God, as a result, postponed the Messianic Kingdom to the time after the Second Coming. In this view, Jesus presented himself as the Messianic King to Israel when he entered Jerusalem on the donkey of Palm Sunday. Israel, however, did not accept him as such and the Messianic Kingdom, therefore, did not realize.<br />
<br />
God, who in his wisdom had foreseen this outcome, then postponed the Messianic Kingdom and replaced Israel with the Church as his instrument on earth who would henceforth proclaim the Good News of his salvation. In this view, the Church did, however, not inherit the promises made to the people of Israel. The Mosaic Covenant was now replaced with the New Covenant with the Church [7].<br />
<br />
If the gap between the first 69 weeks of years and the final seven years coincides with the Church era, then it makes sense that the Church be raptured before the final seven years, which concerns Israel (and not the Church). In that case, the first 69 weeks, as well as the final seven years, belong to the Mosaic dispensation. The final seven years would, therefore, be a return to the Mosaic dispensation (some view the last seven years as a special dispensation).<br />
<br />
Although this scheme seems quite neat, it is not. In the first place, the first 69 weeks obviously do not coincide with the Mosaic dispensation which commenced nearly a thousand years before the seventy weeks of years of Daniel. The end of the first 69 weeks also do not coincide with the end of the Mosaic dispensation (with the crucifixion) or the beginning of the Church dispensation on Pentecost - it ended on Palm Sunday [5]. Then there is the question regarding the final seven years: Is it not strange that God would have us return to the Mosaic dispensation in the larger context of his "progressive" revelation? And: Does not such a return to an old dispensation undermine the salvation which became available through the Cross of Jesus Christ?<br />
<br />
It seems much better to take the prophecy of Daniel as referring to events concerning Israel without trying to force it into some dispensational framework [8, 9]. And then the whole argument for the Rapture taking place seven years before the Second Coming collapses.<br />
<br />
<b>2) The Church in the Apocalypse</b><br />
<br />
The classical Pre-Tribulation View presents a reading of the Book of Revelation in which the Church is in heaven before all the cataclysmic events described in that book begins. In their view, the twenty-four elders who are shown before God's throne in Revelation 4-5, which precedes the seals, trumpets and vials (Rev. 6-18), represent the Church in heaven before the Great Tribulation commences. Although there is no mention in the Book of Revelation that the period of the Great Tribulation would last for seven years, they believe that this would be the period mentioned in the prophecy of Daniel. A period of 3 1/2 years, which may correspond with the second part of the seven years, is mentioned.<br />
<br />
When one considers the outline of the Book of Revelation - without trying to present a detailed discussion - one finds that the order in which things are presented in the first part of the book is as follows: 1) Jesus appears to St. John (traditional Christians usually identify the "John" who wrote the book (Rev. 1:1) with St. John, the Apostle), 2) Jesus dictates seven letters to churches in Asia Minor which stood under St. John's pastoral care (Rev. 2-3), 3) St. John is taken in a vision to heaven where he sees God on the throne, the four heavenly beasts, the seven lamps of fire (the seven-fold Spirit of God), the Lamb (Jesus) who opens the sealed scroll and the 24 elders (Rev. 4-5).<br />
<br />
In the view of these scholars, the seven letters to the churches should be read as a prophecy which refers to seven eras into which the Church dispensation is divided. The characteristics of the churches to whom these letters were directed are then applied to corresponding eras which belong to the Church dispensation through the ages. St. John's experience in which he had a vision of heaven (after he heard the voice of Jesus which sounded like a trumpet), represents the Rapture. The 24 elders, who are then observed at the throne of God, represent the Church in heaven. All of this happens before the seals, trumpets and vials - which means that the Church will not be on earth during that terrible period.<br />
<br />
Again, although this interpretation seems quite neat, it is not. The scholars who belong to this school often assert the importance of a "literal" reading of prophecy but in this case, they employ an allegorical reading (although they call it a "secondary" reading, it stands central to their project). They interpret the seven letters as referring to seven Church eras even though these are merely letters similar to those which, say, St. Paul wrote to various churches.<br />
<br />
In fact, the characteristics of all seven letters belonged to the early Church period (!), in the same way that they belonged to the Church throughout the ages as well as our own time (the Church in the West is very different from the Church in China!). Although the word "church" appears only in this part of Revelation due to the structure of the book (except for Rev. 22:16), there is no reason to believe that this signifies the Church dispensation before the Rapture takes place - the appearance of the word "church" in this part of the book merely reflects the content of the letters to the seven churches. The word "church" is never used in Revelation to denote the whole Church!<br />
<br />
These scholars interpret Jesus's loud voice (which St. John heard twice; Rev. 1:10; 4:1) as the trumpet of the Rapture and his heavenly vision as the Rapture itself even though this is described in similar terms to those of other Old Testament prophets, such as Isaiah (Is. 6). In actual fact, no trumpet is sounded and the Church is not described as being raptured - it was merely St. John's own experience!<br />
<br />
The 24 elders can obviously represent something other than the Church since St. John himself is not included among them (say, believers who partook in the resurrection of Jesus, Matt 27:52-3). As the sealed scroll in the hand of the Lamb clearly contains the prophecies, these things preceding the opening of that scroll and the revelation of its content must be viewed as part of St. John's present and not "the things which shall be hereafter" (Rev. 1:19).<br />
<br />
It seems much simpler to take the things mentioned in Revelation 1-5 merely as they are presented in the book, namely as events concerning St. John himself. In that case, the idea of a Rapture before the Great Tribulation again collapses.<br />
<br />
<b>3) Differences between the Rapture and the Second Coming</b><br />
<br />
Those who hold to the Pre-Tribulation View believes that the New Testament makes a clear distinction between the Rapture and the Second Coming insofar as these are described very differently. In their view, the major difference is that passages which focus on the Rapture (John 14:3; 1 Cor. 15:51-53; 1 Th. 4:13-17) do not mention the signs which precede the Second Coming whereas passages that focus on the Second Coming usually do (the Prophetic Discours; 2 Thess. 2). According to them, this implies that the Rapture would not be preceded by those signs. Many take this as implying that the Rapture can take place at any moment.<br />
<br />
Although this seems to be correct, there is the question regarding the Rapture in the Prophetic Discours. We read in that well-known Scriptural passage which concerns events during the Second Coming that some would be taken away whereas others would be left: "Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch, therefore for you know not at what hour your Lord doth come" (Matt. 24:40-41). Scholars from this school, however, do not take this passage as referring to the Rapture but instead applies it to God's wrath - that those persons would be taken "away" by God's wrath. As such, it is not the Rapture that is spoken of in their opinion.<br />
<br />
There is, however, some scholars from this school who find the Rapture in St. Luke's version of the Prophetic Discours. In that case, we read: "Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man" (Luk. 21:36). These scholars justify the Rapture in this passage by taking St. Matthew's version of the Prophetic Discours as applying to the Jews in end time context and St. Luke's version as applying to Christians. As such, this passage is merely a general challenge to the Church to be ready at all times since the Rapture can come at any time.<br />
<br />
Again, one should be careful not to come to conclusions too fast. The mentioned passages in St. Matthew and St. Luke appear in about the same place in the Prophetic Discours! This means that they most probably refer to the very same things. In fact, it seems much better to accept that since the same discourse which is recounted in St. Matthew and St. Luke was given at the same time to the same people (the disciples), that it applies to the same people, namely the Church living in Jerusalem when these things happen [10].<br />
<br />
When one accepts that these two versions refer to the same things insofar as the Second Coming is concerned, then you find that the very same people who will go through the Tribulation according to St. Matthew's version (Matt. 24:21) will also be the ones who escape all that come to pass at the end of days in St. Luke's version, which in this case would refer to the signs concerning sun, moon and stars when God pours out his wrath on earth (Luk. 21:25, 26, 35). In this case, those who are "taken" would be participating in the Rapture which would enable them to escape God's wrath during the battle of Armageddon.<br />
<br />
So, it seems that one may find the Rapture in the Prophetic Discours after all. In fact, the similarities between typical Rapture passages and others about the Second Coming is quite substantial: In both cases do we read that the Lord comes in the air, in both cases are angels present, in both cases are a trumpet blown (the "last" trumpet) and in both cases are the elect gathered from the ends of the earth and heaven.The reason why the signs of the Second Coming are not discussed in typical Rapture passages may be merely due to the fact that the theme in those passages is the resurrection and not the signs (Th. 4:13; 1 Cor. 15:12).<br />
<br />
Believers who distinguish between the Rapture and the Second Coming often refers to the image of a thief which comes unexpectedly as applying uniquely to the Rapture. They argue that Jesus says that this is how the Rapture would be (Matt. 24:43). The problem for their view is that this warning in the Prophetic Discours appears in the context of the Second Coming during Armageddon! We find the same in the Apocalypse where we read in the middle of the discussion of Armageddon that the Lord would come as a thief:<br />
<br />
"For they [the three unclean spirits which look like frogs] are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walks naked, and they see his shame. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon" (Rev. 16:14-16).<br />
<br />
Clearly, the image of the thief is applied to Jesus's Coming during Armageddon. As such, one should maybe understand it in the terms mentioned by St. Paul: "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day would overtake you as a thief" (1 Thess. 5:4-5).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Image result for left behind" src="http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/left-behind-2014/large_left_behind.jpg" height="320" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="225" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The 2014 film "Left Behind" depicts a Pre-Tribulation Rapture</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>4) The Church escapes God's wrath</b><br />
<br />
Those who hold to the Pre-Tribulation View often identifies the Great Tribulation - either the whole period of seven years or that of 3 1/2 years - with the time of God's wrath. As such, they argue that God would not expose the Church to his wrath, which is why she will be raptured before that happens.<br />
<br />
It is true that Scripture teaches that the Church would not come in God's wrath: "For God had not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 5:9). We also find that the examples that Jesus gives in the Prophetic Discours to elucidate the time of his Coming, namely that of Noah and Lot, also involved the physical removal of his people from the place on which God poured out his wrath. The question is, however, when is the time of God's wrath? Does it coincide with the final seven years or with the last 3 1/2 years or does it happen during the battle of Armageddon? If the last is the case, then this argument does not work.<br />
<br />
The only place where we find any clue in this regard, is in the Book of Revelation. The problem is, however, that this book is interpreted so differently. Take the seals, trumpets and vials. Do they all concern God's wrath? The breaking of the seals merely concern the revealing of the prophetic part of the book and they include the seven trumpets (under the seventh seal) as well as the seven vials (under the seventh trumpet).<br />
<br />
One may take the events described after the first six seals were broken as a broad summary of what is to come (Rev. 6). That includes the four horsemen, the martyrs seen before the throne as well as the destruction of the world when the sun will become black as a sackcloth of hair, the moon will become red as blood, the stars of heaven will fall on the earth and the heavens will be rolled together like a scroll (Rev. 6:12-17). That means that the destruction of heaven and earth in the day of God's wrath would only take place at the end even though it is mentioned already at this early stage in the book.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, although the seven trumpets lead to destruction on various levels, one does find that the images used (such as the description of the locusts; Rev. 9) appear elsewhere in Scripture as a symbol associated with invading armies (Joel 2:1-10). Consistent with such a view - that the trumpets describe a war and related events - we do, in fact, read that Jerusalem will be tread under foot during that time for a period of 3 1/2 years. This means that these things refer to God's indirect wrath (i.e. war) which Christians of all ages had been exposed to.<br />
<br />
It is only in the context of the seven vials that explicit mention is made of God's wrath. Now, as these seven vials are closely identified with the great battle of Armageddon (Rev. 16), one may propose that they do, in fact, refer to the final events of this era. If the wrath of God is only poured out during the great battle of Armageddon, then there is no reason why the Church should be raptured years (or even days) before that time.<br />
<br />
The words "great tribulation" used in St. Matthew's version of the Prophetic Discours (Matt. 24:21), as well as in Revelation (Rev. 7:14), obviously means that millions (?) of Christians would be severely persecuted during that time. It is, after all, the "Great" Tribulation! These martyrs are mentioned throughout Revelation (Rev. 6:9-11; 7:9-17; 15:2-3; 20:4). They are accorded a very special place even though they are not part of the Church, who will be raptured before that time, according to these scholars! In fact, we read that God's wrath is exactly to avenge the death of these Christians (Rev. 19:1-2)! So, it seems that the "great tribulation" concerns Christians and is not part of God's wrath.<br />
<br />
Although scholars from this school of thought interprets the passage in the Letter to the Church in Philadelphia that they would be kept from "the hour of temptation" (Rev. 3:10) as applying to the Great Tribulation, it seems more sensible to apply this to the particular circumstances of that church during the Roman persecutions. On the whole, it seems that there is no real Scriptural support for conflating the Great Tribulation with God's wrath.<br />
<br />
<b>5) A Mid-Tribulation Rapture?</b><br />
<br />
We can now focus more particularly on the view that the Rapture will occur in the middle of the final seven years. According to this view, the Church will be raptured 3 1/2 years before the end. Of particular importance to this view is that which will happen in the middle of the final seven years, namely an "abomination" which will occur in the temple and which will leave it desolate (see Dan. 9:27). In their view, the Rapture will happen directly after this event. They base their arguments on their interpretation of St. Paul's discussion of this future event in his second epistle to the church of Thessalonica.<br />
<br />
According to Jesus, the "abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, (which will) stand in the holy place" (Matt. 24:15) will signal that the end is at hand. The "great tribulation" will follow directly after this event (Matt. 24:21). Then, immediately after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be darkened, the moon will not give her light and the stars will fall from heaven. Then will the "Son of man" (Jesus) appear in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matt. 24:30-31).<br />
<br />
St. Paul also discusses this event in 2 Thessalonians 2. He says that a very wicked person will appear at that time whom he calls the "man of sin" and the "son of perdition". He will oppose God and exalt himself above all gods or forms of worship. As such, he will sit in the temple and present himself as the manifestation of God. Clearly, this refers to the final Antichrist who will appear at the end of days. Obviously, Christians (and Jews) will not worship him in this way, which explains why the Great Tribulation will follow.<br />
<br />
How does this relate to the Rapture? St. Paul says that the day of the Coming of the Lord and of our "gathering together unto him" (the Rapture) shall not happen except there come a falling away first (i.e. from the worship of the true God) and this evil person be revealed in the way described above (2 Thess. 2:1-3). This means that the Rapture will only happen after the Antichrist has revealed himself as such through an abomination in the temple.<br />
<br />
Although this passage by St. Paul implies that the Rapture will happen after the abomination in the temple (in the middle of the final seven years), it does not necessarily mean that it will happen immediately thereafter. In fact, we read in the same passage that Jesus Christ will destroy the Antichrist with his Coming, which may mean that this is also when the Church will be united with their Lord: "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and destroy with the brightness of his coming" (2 Thess. 2:8).<br />
<br />
There is, however, one more issue regarding this passage to be discussed, namely the reference to one who (and that which) will withhold the Antichrist from revealing himself before the appointed time (2 Thess. 2:6, 7). A lot had been written about this. Few other Biblical passages are so unclear and had been interpreted so divergent. As such, this is not a passage that should take a central place in any eschatological view.<br />
<br />
Nonetheless, Pre-Tribulational scholars often interpret the one who will withhold the Antichrist as the Church (or the Holy Spirit) which means that the Antichrist will only be revealed after the Church had been raptured. This, however, does not make sense for the simple reason that St. Paul refers to something as well as someone who withholds the revelation of the Antichrist. The first is referred to as something ("what") which withholds and the second as "one" who withholds the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:6, 7). Neither the Church nor the Holy Spirit is ever referred to in the Bible as something (a "what"). The Church is always "she" and the Holy Spirit "he". This means that St. Paul does not have the Church in mind in this passage!<br />
<br />
What did he have in mind? This can obviously not be answered for sure. We do, however, know how the early Church understood this passage. They believed that "the one" who will withhold the revelation of the Antichrist is the Cesar (as he occupies his place) and that "that" which will withhold him is the Roman empire, which will be replaced by the empire of the Antichrist (for a detailed discussion, see [11]).<br />
<br />
<b>A Post-Tribulation Rapture?</b><br />
<br />
This brings us to the view that the Rapture will happen during the Second Coming. In this view, there are not two distinct events called the Rapture and the Second Coming which will happen some time apart. Rather, the Rapture happens when the saints will meet the Lord in the air with his Second Coming during the battle of Armageddon. Jesus will take them away from earth before pouring his wrath on the nations gathered against Jerusalem. Their arguments are the following:<br />
<br />
<b>1) The Greek words used</b><br />
<br />
Scholars from the Post-Tribulation View mention that there are three Greek words used in the New Testament by St. Paul for the Second Coming, namely "parousia" (coming), "apokalupsis" (revealing) and "epiphaneia" (appearance). If he made a clear distinction between the Rapture and the Second Coming, then one expects that he would have used one term exclusively for the Rapture and another for the Second Coming. This is not the case. What we find, is that all three terms are used for the Rapture as well the Second Coming, which implies that he did not view them as two different events.<br />
<br />
Parousia: 1 Thess. 4:15 (Rapture); 2 Thess. 2:8 (during Armageddon)<br />
Apokalupsis: 1 Cor. 1:7 (Rapture); 2 Thess. 1:7, 8 (during Armageddon)<br />
Epiphaneia: 1 Tim. 6:14 (Rapture); 2 Thess. 2:8 (during Armageddon)<br />
<br />
We also find in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-6, that well-known passage about the Rapture quoted above, that the word which is used to describe our meeting with the Lord in the air is "apantesis" which denotes a going forth to meet someone and then return from where one came. We also find the word used in Matthew 25:6 and Acts 28:15 (and extra-Biblical papyrus texts) where it has this meaning. In Acts, this word is used to describe the going forth of the brethren from Rome to meet St. Paul after which they returned with him to that city. This meaning of the word implies that the Church will meet the Lord in the air and then return with him (in their glorified bodies) to stand on Mount of Olives during the great battle of Armageddon (see Zechariah 14:3-5).<br />
<br />
<b>2) The Rapture in the Book of Revelation</b><br />
<br />
The Post-Tribulation View asserts that there is only one passage in Revelation where the Rapture is clearly depicted. That depiction is similar to the description in the Prophetic Discours, namely that the Son of Man will come with the clouds of heaven and send his angel(s) to gather the elect from all over the earth (Rev. 14:14-16). In Revelation, the image used for the gathering of the elect during the Second Coming is the grain harvest. This is also how Jesus depicts the gathering of the saints in the parable of the tares and wheat (Matt. 13:24-30).<br />
<br />
The grain harvest seems to include both the gathering of the living saints (Rapture) and those who had died (resurrection). The reason for thinking so is that the cutting of the first sheaf of barley early on the first day of the week directly following the Passover (and waving it before God in the temple) symbolized the resurrection of Jesus Christ - who was joined with other resurrected saints on that occasion (Matt 27:52-3). In St. Paul's discussion of the order of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, he says that this will happen as follows: first Christ as the firstfruits (the first sheaf) and then the general resurrection of the just which will take place at his coming (1 Cor. 15:23).<br />
<br />
Now, in Revelation, we read about two harvests which are depicted one after the other, namely the grain harvest and the grape harvest (Rev. 14:14-20). These are depicted towards the end of the book and seems to be a forewarning of things that will happen towards the end. The first is clearly the gathering of the saints. The second refers to events during the battle of Armageddon which is compared to a wine press: "[the angel] gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden without the city [Jerusalem], and the blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs" (Rev. 14:15-16). The same image is repeated in Revelation 19:11-21 where the Second Coming of Jesus Christ during the battle is described in some detail.<br />
<br />
It seems that in the Book of Revelation the Rapture is depicted as happening at the time of the great battle of Armageddon.<br />
<br />
<b>3) The first resurrection</b><br />
<br />
Throughout Scripture, we read that there will be two general resurrections, namely that of the just and that of the unjust (Dan. 12:2; Joh. 5:29). In the Book of Revelation, these are called the "first resurrection" and the "second death" (Rev. 20:4-6). The first resurrection is so called because there will be no general resurrection before that and the second one is so called since it would be a resurrection unto eternal damnation (called the "second death").<br />
<br />
In Revelation, the first resurrection (Rev. 20:4-6) is described directly after the great battle of Armageddon (Rev. 19:11-21). We read that the martyrs who have died at the hands of the "beast" during the period of severe persecution which preceded the Second Coming will be among those resurrected during the "first resurrection". They will reign with Jesus Christ after his victory over the "beast" (which seems to refer to the final Antichrist) during the great battle of Armageddon (Rev. 19:11-21). Clearly, the "first resurrection" cannot happen before the Second Coming as these martyrs are included at that event. This means that the Rapture, during which the first general resurrection is to take place, cannot happen before the Second Coming.<br />
<br />
<b>4) The Church in the Great Tribulation</b><br />
<br />
There are two important passages used by Post-Tribulation scholars in support of their view that the Church will indeed be in the Great Tribulation, namely Revelation 14:13 and 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8.<br />
<br />
In Revelation 14 we read about various angels who appear to make announcements. The first announces that the "hour of the judgment of God has come" (Rev. 14:7). The second announces that the great Babylon is fallen (Rev. 14:8) (see [12] for a detailed discussion). The third announces God's wrath upon those who worship the "beast" and his image. Then a voice was heard saying: "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth. Yes, sayeth the Spirit: that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them" (Rev. 14:13). This is followed by the depictions of the grain and grape harvest discussed above.<br />
<br />
Now, this passage clearly refers to those Christians who will die during that period of severe persecution when the "beast" will kill many. They will receive a special reward or crown for their heroic faith and deeds during the reign of the beast. Now, we read that they die "in the Lord". This is a technical term, first introduced by St. Paul, which is used to refer to those who belong to the Church. They are "in the Lord" in the sense of belonging to his body, the Church. So, here we find an explicit reference to saints belonging to the Church who will be in the Great Tribulation.<br />
<br />
In 2 Thessalonians 1:4-8 we read: "So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer; Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble [persecute] you; And to you who are troubled rest [relieve] with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking revenge on them that know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ".<br />
<br />
In this passage St. Paul speaks in the expectation that the Second Coming could have taken place during his own lifetime. As such, he viewed the persecution that the Church was suffering at that time as possibly being the last and final one before the Lord returns. This means that he is talking of the Great Tribulation which will precede the Second Coming of Jesus Christ when he will pour his wrath on those who persecuted the Church. Furthermore, <i>he is clearly thinking that the Church will be in that tribulation as they will only be saved from that by the return of the Lord</i>. And since he includes himself among those who will be so saved (clearly through the Rapture) there cannot be any doubt that he thought that the Church will be in the Great Tribulation.<br />
<br />
The thrust of this passage is that the Church will get relief from the Great Tribulation by the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The Church will, therefore, be in the Great Tribulation.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
In this essay, I discuss the main views on the Rapture. Clearly, Christians have very different views regarding the time of the Rapture. What is, however, important, is that one should not defend any particular view merely for the sake of defending it but should rather have an openness to be convinced by the Scriptures. Obviously, we will have only a partial knowledge of these things until the time of the fulfilment of the prophecies.<br />
<br />
In my critical analysis of all the main arguments of the various views, I have not found any passage in support of the Pre-Tribulation View. Although one may read some passages in that way, closer scrutiny seems to suggest that such readings are not convincing. In contrast, there are some passages that explicitly place the Church in the Great Tribulation (Rev. 14:13; 2 Thess. 1:6-7). It seems that the outpouring of God's wrath at Armageddon is, in fact, in retribution for the killing and persecution of the saints who suffered so much during the Great Tribulation.<br />
<br />
We should take heed of St. Paul's words that persecution renders the Church "worthy" of the kingdom of God. Clearly, the Christian martyrs have a very special place in God's plan. This makes the idea that the Church will escape persecution an unworthy one.<br />
<br />
[1] The view which distinguishes between the Rapture and the Second Coming (during Armageddon), includes various schools of thought regarding the length of the period between these events. Some believe that this in-between period will last 7 years, others 3 1/2 years and still others 50 or some other number of days. There are also those who think that the Church as a whole will not be raptured, but only a selected groups of saints. The rest will be "left behind" to face the Great Tribulation on earth.<br />
[2] Those Christians who use the word Rapture, usually believe that the Second Coming during the battle of Armageddon will lead to the Messianic reign of Jesus Christ on earth for one thousand years (called the Millennium). Christians who do not believe in the Millennium usually steer clear of the term "Rapture". Insofar as they, however, believe that the saints will be "caught up" in the clouds to meet Christ in the air during the Second Coming, they do, in fact, believe in this eschatological event. As such, the Rapture is something that all traditional Christians believe in.<br />
[3] The period is actually divided into three parts, namely seven, sixty-two and one, weeks of years. As the first two parts are consecutive, one may treat them together as one period.<br />
[4] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/05/the-final-seven-years-different-views.html" target="_blank">The final seven years: The different views</a><br />
[5] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/10/the-final-antichrist-different-views.html" target="_blank">A very remarkable prophecy</a><br />
[6] The term Mid-Tribulation implies that the Great Tribulation will last for seven years and that the Rapture will happen in the middle thereof. Most of the proponents of this view, however, do not think that the Great Tribulation will last for seven years but only for the last three-and-a-half years. As such, their view is actually Pre-Tribulational. Their version of the Pre-Tribulation View differs from the classical one in that they regard the duration of the Tribulation differently.<br />
[7] The close association of the classical Pre-Tribulation View with Dispensationalism (the theory about the various dispensations) has led some scholars (especially from Covenant Theology circles) to think that this view is, in fact, what Dispensationalism teaches. It is not. It is merely one particular reading of Dispensationalism. A much more streamlined view of Dispensationalism would merely take the current dispensation as continuing until the end of this era with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.<br />
[8] In this case, one would reject the idea of a "postponed Messianic Kingdom". You would merely take the replacement of the Mosaic dispensation with the Christian one (in which the Mosaic Covenant is replaced with the New Covenant) as having been God's plan all along.<br />
[9] Insofar as one excepts that God still has a plan for Israel (see Rom. 11:25-32) you cannot adhere to a "replacement theology" which replaces Israel with the Church even within the context of Bible prophecy. Replacement theology sees no further role for Israel in God's plan.<br />
[10] One may view the Prophetic Discours as a multiple prophecy concerning both the events of 70 AD and those happening at the Second Coming. In that case, one may furthermore take St. Matthew's version as primarily concerned with the latter and St. Luke's version as also being concerned with the first.<br />
[11] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/10/when-can-second-coming-of-jesus-be.html" target="_blank">When can the Second Coming of Jesus Christ be expected?</a><br />
[12] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/10/the-final-antichrist-different-views.html" target="_blank">The final Antichrist: the different view</a>s<br />
<br />
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)<br />
The author has written a few books on eschatology including <i>Op pad na Armageddon, 31 bepeinsinge oor Openbaring en ander Bybelprofesie</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"><i>ë</i></span> (1995). He has a Masters in Philosophy (University of Cape Town) as well as a PhD in Physics (University of Natal). He writes and lectures on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology.<br />
<br />
If readers find the essay important for current debate, they are welcome to share it or forward it to others.<br />
<br />
Read also<br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/04/bible-prophecy-predicting-distant-future.html" target="_blank">Bible prophecy: predicting the distant future?</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/05/the-rise-of-final-world-empire.html" target="_blank">The rise of the final world empire: the different views</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/05/the-final-seven-years-different-views.html" target="_blank">The final seven years: the different views</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/10/the-final-antichrist-different-views.html" target="_blank">The final Antichrist: the different views</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/10/when-can-second-coming-of-jesus-be.html" target="_blank">When can the Second Coming of Jesus be expected?</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-67234936175407959102017-08-07T22:29:00.000-07:002019-07-02T05:43:23.036-07:00The Great Flood: Did it really happen?<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"><i>The Biblical story of the deluge has been a bone of contention for a long time. Conservative Christians often believe that the Biblical story should be taken literally as saying that the whole earth was inundated during the Great Flood. Biblical Criticism scholars often think that it is nothing but a myth. So, what is the truth? What does the evidence tell us?</i></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There are few Biblical stories that generate so much debate as the one about the deluge. This cataclysmic event still grabs the attention of large audiences as can be seen in the numbers who viewed the recent epic drama <i>Noah</i> (2014). In the Netherlands, one person even built an ark according to the specifications given in the Bible. Others search for the remains of the Ark on Mt Ararat in northeastern Turkey. Still others find evidence for the Great Flood all over the world.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">People have widely divergent views on this topic. Some believe that we should read the Biblical narrative as saying that the waters covered the whole earth – Mt. Everest included. They read all archaeological evidence regarding cataclysmic events in the context of the Great Flood. Others believe that it is merely a myth – in their view, this is a typical myth which originated either in some way in the various great floods throughout the long history of mankind going back many millennia or from our collective unconscious (if you are a Jungian). The question is: who is right?</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Giving a balanced account of the Biblical story of the deluge is a great challenge – not the least because some people are so fired up about it and are not open to any discussion that differs from their dogmatic position. One should, however, remember that the deluge is said to have happened long before the earliest Biblical text was written down. Traditional Christians believe that Moses wrote the story down in about 1400 BC which is (depending on the Biblical text used) a millennium or more after the event itself. This forces us to consider the question: Where did the author get the information used in this story? Where did that tradition originate?</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">At this point it is important to accentuate that the story of the Great Flood cannot be viewed in isolation; we should consider it within the context of the “ancient history” of Genesis 2-11. If we want to understand the story of the Biblical flood, we have to consider the background of the “ancient history”. I previously argued that this tradition was handed down within Abraham’s family since the time when they migrated from Ur in Sumer (part 8 of this series). I call it the Sumerian hypothesis. I showed that about everything in the ancient history – the deluge included – go back to persons and events that are also mentioned in ancient Sumerian tradition. As such it seems reasonable to begin our discussion by considering the Sumerian tradition in this regard.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>The origin of the Biblical story of the deluge</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The deluge made a very distinct impression on Sumerian tradition. As such it was remembered as a universal flood that did not merely change the Sumerian world but also that of humanity. We find this tradition in the Sumerian King List although the story of the deluge is also told in other literary works. What I show in this section is that 1) the Sumerian tradition about the deluge places it solidly within the framework of ancient Sumerian history and 2) archaeological data is consistent with that tradition.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There was a time when Sumerologists thought that the Sumerian deluge should be identified with one of the occasional floods which happen when the Mesopotamian rivers breach their walls such as the Kish flood of ca. 2800 BC which is attested at Kish and Surrupak. The problem is that this was a local flood and it is difficult to see why it would have been remembered in such exceptional terms even though it might have been a dramatic event. The scholar Benjamin R. Foster wrote: “A major defining event in the Mesopotamian view of the history of the human race was the deluge, known from several Akkadian versions [Akkadian was the language of the eastern Semites living in Sumer]. This was considered a one-time, universal flood that changed human history forever” [1].</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When we consider the historical context in which the Sumerian King List places the deluge, we can pin down the flood more accurately in accordance with archaeological data. According to the King List, the antediluvian kings ruled for the most part in the southernmost city of Eridu whereas the first postdiluvian kings ruled in Uruk. This is consistent with the archaeological evidence, namely that Eridu, which was considered to be the oldest city in Sumer, existed since early in the so-called Ubaid period whereas Uruk was built in the subsequent Uruk period.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">These periods, which have distinct material cultures that are attested throughout ancient Mesopotamia, are separated by evidence of a great flood that has been found at various places in Sumer and beyond [2]. One of these is the clay deposit of 2.7-3.7 meters which was discovered by Sir Leonard Woolly (1880-1960) at Ur. This archaeological data is consistent with the flood tradition in the Sumerian King List, not only insofar as its place in Sumerian history is concerned (i.e. regarding the rulers of Eridu and Uruk), but also in showing that this flood covered the whole of that ancient land since it divides Mesopotamian history into two very distinct material cultures, namely one before and one after the mentioned flood. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In accordance with this correspondence between the Sumerian tradition and the archaeological data, the Sumerologist Theresa Howard-Carter wrote: “The reference to a [Sumerian] flood is more than casual and is remarked in a number of epic tales… recent research in the geomorphology of the Gulf area now forces us to think in larger terms. That research documents what appears to have been a major inundation just before 3500 BC, at which time the waters of the Gulf reached a point north of Amara… [It] was a massive movement of the sea which is not to be confused with later small floods… the geologic land tilt caused by the folding and faulting of the Zagros Mountains… covered effectively the cities of Sumeria… This giant of all floods occurred just at the middle of the fourth millennium at a point already distinguished archaeologically as the beginning of the Uruk Period. This is stratigraphically demonstrable at Eridu, Ur and Warka [Uruk]” [3].</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There was a time when geologists thought that the layers of clay at Ur may be merely due to tectonic activity [4]. That has since changed. Geologists now think that the sea actually inundated the land and that the current meander patterns of the Mesopotamian rivers came into existence when that happened [5]. We are therefore not looking at a local flood where the river overflowed its walls but a massive flood during which the Persian Gulf overflowed the land.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>The post-deluge period in Sumer</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Before I proceed to discuss the questions about the extent of the flood and its date in more detail, it is important to first consider the evidence regarding the post-deluge period in Sumer and see how that corresponds with the story in the Bible. The important thing is to show that the Sumerian flood that I discussed above, is indeed the one mentioned in the Biblical tradition. As such one may mention that the Biblical Noah corresponds with the Sumerian Ziusudra, the last antediluvian king in Sumer mentioned in the Sumerian King List who was also the hero of the Sumerian flood epic (remembered in the Akkadian tradition as Atrahasis). Both are said to have built a boat/ark after being advised to do so by God or a god, which resulted in them surviving the deluge.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There are, however, more detailed correspondences between the two traditions. As such, there is an important Sumerian family who features in both traditions insofar as they ruled that ancient land directly after the deluge – which strengthens the case that the stories go back to the same original tradition. This is the Biblical Cush family, who corresponds with that of Meshkiagkasher (Kash for short) in Sumerian tradition (see part 8).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">According to the Sumerian King List, Meskiagkasher was the founder of the House of Uruk who ruled over Sumer in the period directly after the deluge. His son was Enmerkar, who corresponds with the Biblical Nimrod. The consonants in the first part of the name Enmerkar, namely nmr, may be vocalized as Nimrod, and the “kar” at the end of the name may be read as “hunter”. It is not only the names that correspond: in both traditions Nimrod/Enmerkar was remembered as a great Sumerian ruler from the postdiluvian period whose kingdom included not only cities such as Uruk in Sumer but also cities in the distant north (for a detailed discussion, see part 8 of this series).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In the Sumerian tradition Meskiagkasher is remembered as migrating from the land of Aratta in the north [6] to settle at the temple of An in the land of Sumer. When he came to the southern plains of Sumer the city of Uruk did not yet exist – according to the Sumerian King List it was built by his son Enmerkar. This tradition is in accordance with archaeological data which shows not only a dramatic drop in the overall population density at the end of the Ubaid period (consistent with the flood), but also clear signs of large numbers of new settlers who then came to live in the area of the temple of An where the future city of Uruk was built [7]. This is consistent with the Sumerian tradition that Meskiagkasher came to this area after the deluge.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Where was the land of Aratta from where Meskiagkasher originated? According to the Sumerian tradition of Enmerkar, the land of Aratta was reached after crossing seven mountain ranges. These seven mountain ranges were obviously a well-known landmark in ancient times. It is also mentioned in later Mesopotamian tradition when the Assyrian king Sargon II travelled over these mountain ranges to the northern land of Urartu. When he came to the area south of Lake Urmia (in the northwestern part of present-day Iran) he is said to have crossed the Aratta river – the only authentic mentioning of this name outside the Sumerian tradition. In my view, the land of Aratta is merely that of Urartu, which was remembered in the Biblical tradition as the land of Ararat (Jer. 51:27; 2 Ki. 19:37).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What we now find is that the Biblical land of Ararat is none other than the ancient land of Aratta mentioned in Sumerian sources as the homeland of Meskiagkasher (Cush). According to the Biblical tradition, the Ark landed somewhere on the mountains of Ararat from where some of the descendants of Noah, such as the Cush-dynasty, came to live in the southern plains of Sumer. This means that the relevant mountain is not Mt. Ararat in present-day Turkey, but some range in the Zagros to the north of Mesopotamia. The reason why the current Mt. Ararat got that name is that the Urartians, with whom it is closely identified (taking its name from their own) – especially after their conversion to Christianity in the beginning of the fourth century AD – migrated northwards over the centuries to their current location.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">So, what we find is that the Biblical story of the deluge and the family of Cush who migrated from Ararat/Aratta to Sumer in the subsequent period corresponds with the Sumerian tradition. I previously showed that the “ancient history” in the Book of Genesis corresponds to a remarkable degree with persons and events in ancient Sumerian tradition. This includes not only the story of the deluge but the whole outline of that ancient period – which is also consistent with a viable reconstruction of ancient Sumerian history (see part 8 of this series). I now conclude that the Biblical deluge is the very one that was remembered in ancient Sumer. In my view, that story was part of the Semitic tradition that was handed down from generation to generation within the Abrahamic family since they first migrated from Ur in Sumer to the land of Canaan.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>Dating the deluge</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There is, however, one problem, namely that the Biblical and Sumerian traditions date the flood differently. According to the Masoretic mother text used for most translations of the Bible, the deluge happened in about 2400 BC. The Sumerian tradition – when one reads it together with archaeological data – places the deluge way back in the fourth (or even fifth) millennium BC. In this case, the date is obtained from dendrochronological data which is extrapolated from the established Egyptian chronology. A few decades ago this date was calculated as c.a. 3500 BC; nowadays it is placed in c.a. 4200 BC.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://68.media.tumblr.com/f6e65c4ba52f3468330d2c99e48dfd7f/tumblr_mzdnpvbGcM1rrajnno1_1280.jpg" height="262" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Flood (1616-1618) by Antonio Carracci (1581-1618)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The difference between these dates is substantial. Some readers think that we should just trust the Masoretic text. The problem is, however, that the date derived from the Masoretic text is in radical conflict with all archaeological evidence! The date 2400 BC falls within a period that is very well understood, namely in the middle of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and during the late Early-Dynastic period in Mesopotamia. Although some Biblical students are adamant about this date, there is absolutely no doubt that it cannot be correct! We find a much more realistic date in the Septuagint, the Greek version of an early Hebrew mother text that was translated during the third to second centuries BC in Egypt [8]. According to the Septuagint, the deluge happened in about 3300 BC.<br />
</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></span> <span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I previously presented a detailed outline for a new chronology of the ancient Middle East in which I argued that the so-called “high” chronology of Mesopotamia should be correlated with the “low” chronology of K.A Kitchen for the Twelve Dynasty in Egypt [9]. This reconstruction of events explains many things that are otherwise difficult to understand (this goes beyond the current essay); it is also perfectly in line with the dates for Abraham given in the Septuagint. Since this new chronology brings the beginning of dynastic Egypt down to 2781 BC, the corresponding dates for early Sumer also come down (dendrochronologically arrived dates are not absolute and have to be adapted accordingly). In this case, we arrive at a good fit between Biblical and archaeological data, namely that the deluge happened in about 3300 BC.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>A worldwide flood?</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">One of the most important questions about the deluge is: Was it something that happened only in the Persian Gulf area or do we have reason to believe that it was a worldwide flood? Traditional Christians have always believed that it was a worldwide flood. The reason for this is that the Biblical author (as well as the ones who wrote the Sumerian and Akkadian versions) depicts the flood as an extraordinary event that nearly led to the extinction of the human race.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When we read the Bible, we should always keep in mind that the Biblical authors did not have a scientific understanding of the world and did not describe events in such terms. When the author, for example, says that “all flesh died that moved upon the earth” (Gen. 7:21), one should ask: Is this statement to be taken in a scientific sense or as an observational statement within the context of delivered tradition? I believe that it is the latter. And for good reason, which is consistent with other aspects of Biblical tradition. </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px;">We find something similar in the story of Joseph (also in the Book of Genesis) where we read that the famine was "over all the face of the earth" (Gen. 41:56). This statement was obviously not intended to include South America!</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When we consider the peoples who are said to have been descended from the Biblical Noah, they include Semites, Japhetites (usually interpreted as the Germanic peoples) and Hamites (usually interpreted as the Kushite peoples). But what about the aborigine peoples who do not belong to this classification (the American Indians, Bushmen and others) or the Chinese and Japanese peoples? It is obvious that these peoples are not descended from the Biblical Noah. Not only do they not feature in the Biblical genealogies; they were far removed from the context of the ancient Middle Eastern world where the tradition originated. This means that the deluge did not lead to the extinction of all flesh – people and animals included – in any final sense but only within the context of the world in which this tradition originated.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This observation is supported by basic science. If the waters of the deluge covered all the earth – Mt. Everest included – where did it come from? We know that there is not enough water on earth to even remotely cover the earth to about 8 km above sea level! So, the Great Flood did not cover all the earth. This, however, does not mean that the flood was merely a local phenomenon. It might still have been a worldwide event in accordance with the exceptional description thereof as nearly destroying humanity.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When we consider this question regarding the extent of the flood, it is important that all evidence of the flood be taken within the correct archaeological context! Although some people go to great lengths to prove the historicity of such a Great Flood, using data from all over the world that in some way shows that some cataclysmic event involving a flood happened, it is of no use if it is not found within the right period. So, what is necessary is to find other evidence of such a flood consistent with the Biblical dating of the flood. In this regard, we have to work with the currently accepted dendrochronological dates even though we might believe that these are too early. Dendrochronologically obtained dates are a good measure for relative dating, i.e. when events from different regions are compared (but not for absolute dating).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In my view, there is some evidence for inundations happening all over the world at that time. When visiting the city of Varna on the Black Sea coast, I found that a large deluge also destroyed an important civilization in this part of the world at the same time that the early Sumerian civilization was destroyed (both floods are dated to about 4200 BC). Archaeologists believe that the civilization centred at Varna was comparable with those of later times in Sumer and Egypt. This civilization was destroyed at the end of the so-called Eneolithic Age and the ruins thereof are today about 3-8 meters under the sea. What is also interesting, is that others towns in the wider area had also been abandoned at this time, such as one near Provadia-Solnitsata (5500-4200 BC) in Bulgaria [10]. Although the cause is uncertain (we know that floods are very difficult to prove in the archaeological record), it might have been due to the widespread destruction caused by the Varna flood.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In this very same period, we find some dramatic changes throughout Europe that may be related to the Varna flood. In about that time the farmers associated with the linear pottery culture (LBK) which had spread all over Europe to become the first “Pan-European culture”, suddenly disappeared with the arrival of newcomers on the scene who seem to have been the direct ancestors of the people living in modern Europe since they are genetically close to about 50% of them. It is unclear how the previous population became extinct – it might have been disease, climate change or one may suggest that it was due to the very same event that destroyed the Varna civilization.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In an article in the <i>National Geographic</i>, News Alan Cooper, director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA at the University of Adelaide, says in this regard: "All we know is that the descendants of the LBK farmers disappeared from Central Europe about 4,500 [B.C.], clearing the way for the rise of populations from elsewhere, with their own unique H signatures." [11] This is consistent with archaeological changes at about that time (c.a. 4000 BC) when the long house associated with the LBK farmers as well as their kind of stone tools disappeared [12].</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Insofar as this may be due to a massive flood, I found some evidence for that in western Europe. Archaeologists found a mysterious black layer of organic material covering the oldest archaeological site found in Clare in southeastern Ireland dating back to more than 4000 BC which they identified with the remains of a tsunami. The layer is about 2-3 inches thick and disappears when it comes into contact with air [13]. The tsunami which inundated these remains may have been part of a larger one. At about 4200 BC, “Doggerland” [14], which refers to the landmass in the North Sea between Britain and the Continent, was finally inundated with water [15].</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This data is quite diverse and as far as I know, there is no scholar that has argued that they all belong together as I do. We find inundations in c.a. 4200 BC which are as far apart as the Persian Gulf, the Black Sea, the North Sea and the Irish Coast. This is the time when the LBK farmers mysteriously disappeared from Europe only to be replaced by newcomers. I do not argue that one massive flood inundated the whole ancient world; rather, I suggest that something happened that impacted the whole world where many areas were inundated by massive floods. It is possible that the axis of the earth for some reason tilted (maybe due to a passing comet or something) and that this caused catastrophic events all over the world. This is as far as the evidence allows us to go at this stage.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In this essay, I discuss the Great Flood of Biblical tradition. I show that the details of this story do not belong exclusively to the Biblical tale; we find it also in Sumerian tradition. In fact, the detailed correspondences between the two traditions show that the Biblical tradition of the deluge originally came from Sumer. I argued elsewhere (see part 8) that it was brought from there by the Abrahamic family.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In my view, we should accept the Septuagint dating for the deluge as correct. The date obtained from the Masoretic text is impossible to defend. It is in conflict with everything that we know about that period – which is very well established through astronomical dating and king lists. Insofar as the Biblical Flood is said to have led to the near destruction of all flesh – just as we find in the Sumerian and Akkadian traditions – we should accept that this was part of the accepted ancient Middle Eastern tradition. The Bible, however, gives us good reasons to think that the deluge did not destroy all people in any literal sense – the Biblical genealogies enable us to establish which peoples survived that period even though they were not in the ark. The Biblical tradition is consistent with the fact that the deluge did not inundate all the earth as we know from archaeological data.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What is important to the Biblical tradition, is that the descendants of the people with whom God established a relationship survived the deluge. As such, they were the heirs of the divine promise that had been made to their forefathers regarding the coming of Messiah, according to the Biblical tradition. Although others around the globe also survived the events associated with the deluge, the Bible is primarily concerned with the survival of the people with whom God established a relationship. This is the main theme of the Biblical story of the deluge.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1] Foster, Benjamin R. 2007. Mesopotamia, in John R. Hinnells (ed.). Mari in Retrospect. Fifty years of Mari and Mari studies. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. P187</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2] A “dislocation” of people of “regional significance” at the time of the end of the Ubaid period is also attested in the Elamite plains (Algaze 1986:6).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3] Howard-Carter, Theresa. 1981. The Tangible Evidence for the Earliest Dilmun. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 33(3/4):210-223.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4] Lees, G. M. & Flacon, N. L. 1952. The Geographical History of the Mesopotamian Plains. The Geographical Journal 118(1):24-39.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5] Nützel, Werner. 1979. On the Geographical Position of as Yet Unexplored Early Mesopotamian Cultures: Contribution to the Theoretical Archaeology. Journal of the American Oriental Society 99(2):288-296.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[6] Vanstiphout, Herman. 2003. Epics of Sumerian Kings. The Matter of Aratta. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. P67.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[7] Akkermans, Peter M. M. G. 1989. <i>Tradition and Social Change in Northern Mesopotamia during the Later Fifth and Fourth Millennium BC</i>, in Elizabeth F. Henrickson & Ingolf Thuesen. Upon this Foundation – The Ubaid Reconsidered. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum. P346-7.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The city of Susa in Elam was also built at this time on virgin soil. See the “Concluding Remarks” by Mcc Robert Adams & Henry Wright in the same volume.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[8] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/01/the-importance-of-septuagint-in.html" target="_blank">The importance of the Septuagint in Biblical studies</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[9] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/02/presenting-new-ancient-middle-eastern.html" target="_blank">Presenting a new ancient Middle eastern chronology</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[10] <a href="http://naim.bg/contentFiles/ARH_2012_1_res1.pdf">http://naim.bg/contentFiles/ARH_2012_1_res1.pdf</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[11] <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130423-european-genetic-history-dna-archaeology-science/">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130423-european-genetic-history-dna-archaeology-science/</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[12] The dates of 4500 BC and 4000 BC are derived from different methods (genetic and dendrochronological dating). Although these methods use different presuppositions, they are probably linked in that the last is used to calibrate the first. When studying events from that epoch, such differences are well within the scope of accepted error.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[13] <a href="http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/6000-year-old-settlement-poses-tsunami-mystery-193230.html">http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/6000-year-old-settlement-poses-tsunami-mystery-193230.html</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[14] The inundation of Doggerland is currently believed to have commenced with a tsunami in ca. 5800 BC. This also the date that is currently associated with the inundation of large parts of the Mediterranean Sea when the Black Sea may have overflowed into that area (i.e. 5600 BC). If it ever happens that these dates are lowered to ca. 4200 BC, then the scope of events associated with the Biblical deluge would increase substantially.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[15] A Farewell to Ice: A Report from the Artic, Peter Wadhams (2016).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The author has written a book on the Sumerian roots of the Bible (Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012)) and is a scientist (PhD in Physics; MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Read also the other parts of the series on the Book of Genesis:<br />Intro: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/09/the-book-of-genesis-sumerian-hypothesis.html">The Book of Genesis - the Sumerian hypothesis</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Part 1: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2013/03/does-creation-narrative-of-genesis-1.html">Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Part 2: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2013/07/adam-and-eve-were-they-first-humans.html">Adam and Eve: Were they the first humans</a>?</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Part 3: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-garden-of-eden-was-it-real-place.html">The Garden of Eden: Was it a real place?</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Part 4: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-serpent-of-paradise.html">The Serpent of Paradise</a><br />Part 5: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2015/06/reconsidering-fall.html">Reconsidering the Fall</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Part 6: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/02/the-origins-of-satan-ancient-worldview.html">The ancient worldview: the origins of Satan</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Part 7: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/06/who-is-elohim.html">Who is Elohim?</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Part 8: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/04/the-ancient-history-of-genesis-4-11.html" target="_blank">The “ancient history” in Genesis 4-11: Myth or history?</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #444444;">Part 10:</span><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/03/abraham-holds-key.html" style="background-color: white; color: #666666;" target="_blank">Abraham holds the key</a><span style="background-color: white;"> </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">If readers find the article interesting, they are welcome to share it or forward it to others, including their pastors or other scholars. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-60646886350127749242017-07-05T00:43:00.000-07:002019-08-01T06:39:45.619-07:00On Christian morality<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i style="font-family: inherit;">In our day Christian morality has become a contentious issue. Christians even differ among themselves about the nature of Christian morality. Somehow the very idea of morality has become blurred. In this essay, I reconsider the grounds for a Christian morality. I ask: Does it refer to timeless, objective values? and How does it differ from cultural values? I also discuss the moral revolution that characterises our time and the consequences for future generations. </i><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Over the past decades, the Western world has changed dramatically. The Christian values that were previously generally accepted in society are now in the cross-fire. Many people reject the Biblical grounds for societal values and believe that those values are unsuited for our day and age. As such the Bible – especially the Old Testament – has come under fire for the cruelty and God-sanctioned violence that are said to be found in its pages. In the view of these postmodern critics, we cannot take the Bible serious as divinely inspired – and its prescriptions for a Biblical lifestyle are therefore taken as mere old-fashioned ideas.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">These are not easy issues for Christians to deal with. To understand the real nature of things is never easy – so much more in the realm of morality. To provide sensible answers would require a deeper look at morality – going right down to the very roots of the concept of "morality" itself. Such an inquiry should include penetrating questions such as: Are there really moral values that are timeless – and can objective morality be defended? In what sense can we discern between true moral values and mere cultural values – and is it even possible to untangle these? On what grounds can Christians expect society to follow their values – or at least accept them as valid?</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />In this essay, I engage with these and other questions regarding Christian morality. I show that we in the Western world are in the midst of a moral revolution that is changing the way that people think about all these things. A good understanding of the issues at hand may help in our search for the best strategy to go forward.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">In an effort to present a coherent approach in which all the issues are handled in an integrated manner, I work (as always) from a Kantian approach. I, however, do not start from Kant's moral philosophy as one may expect. Instead, I commence with his epistemology (the study of knowledge claims). I previously showed how we may read Kant through a Gadamerian lens [1] – that is, how we may use Hans-Georg Gadamer's philosophy to enlarge the scope of Kantian thinking to accommodate all aspects of human experience in its embrace. In this essay, I show how we may apply this approach to our moral experience.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><b>The idea of a moral narrative</b></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Before we engage with the moral issues that govern contemporary debate, I would like to start on a more basic level with the issue of morality itself – especially insofar as philosophical thinking about morality is concerned. We have various models of morality – the most important among these are Aristotelian virtue ethics, Kant's normative ethics and Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism (there are also other non-hedonistic forms of Utilitarianism). One may ask: Which of these models is the better one?</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Now, this is obviously not the right question to ask. The reason is that these different theoretical models of morality apply to different contexts. Although these models are all concerned with the issue of morality, each one is better suited in certain contexts than others. As we find in all human experience, including our moral experience, we can do no better than accepting that we have various such models. The issue of morality is, therefore, all but straightforward.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Let’s look at the contexts where these theories apply: Aristotle’s virtue ethics concern practical living in everyday contexts. Kant’s normative ethics prescribe rules that should govern society, such as his famous Categorical Imperative which reads (in its most basic formulation): “Act only according to that maxim [rule] whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Each person should be treated as an end, not as a means. Utilitarian ethics, in turn, asks what is the best action that would maximise “utility” (well-being), especially insofar as the interests of society instead of the individual are concerned: to produce “the greatest amount of good for the greatest number”. It is very useful in contexts where we have to do with moral dilemmas.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">One may ask: Can we place these models of morality within a broader framework which allows us to gain a better understanding of how these models relate to each other? This is where I want to bring in the Kantian approach to experience in general before engaging with questions about our moral experience. In Kant’s philosophy in his famous <i>Critique of Pure Reason</i>, experience involves both our concepts and our intuitions: our concepts are synthesised with our intuitions given in sensibility. As such one makes a judgment as to whether the data given in intuition (i.e. in the senses) is in accordance with the concept(s) applied to it. In general, this means that all viable theoretical models should be in agreement with the data.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">We may have various such theoretical models that apply to different contexts, which are therefore all “true” in some sense. A good example is to be found in the natural sciences, where Newton’s theory applies very well to classical contexts, Einstein’s General Relativity applies to relativistic contexts and Quantum theory applies to quantum contexts. The question is whether we may apply these ideas to the field of morality where we also have various models which apply to different contexts.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">This is where Gadamer’s insights come into play. What Gadamer proposed is that all experience may be regarded as an “event” of understanding. As such there is no reason to restrict experience to that of physical objects in nature (as in Kant’s approach); we may just as well include other “hermeneutical objects” within the scope of human experience. These may include any subject matter, that is, any issue that we have to judge in accordance with certain rules which govern that particular “mode of being”, which in turn may be envisioned as a “game” that embraces the human subject (this may involve any field of study).</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Within the context of particular application, Gadamer speaks of “concretization”, that is, when we judge that some kind of particular belongs to some universal (rule) in that context, as he writes in <i>Truth and Method</i>: “Understanding, then, is a special case of applying something universal to a particular situation” (p310). When we understand, we find some kind of truth in that situation. This is consistent with the Kantian idea of “truth” (knowledge) – it only applies the Kantian idea more generally to our world.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Of special importance in Gadamer’s philosophy is the recognition of our cultural and historical conditionedness. All events of understanding take place within our a contextual conditionedness. We as humans do not have some kind of objective view of the world – we are embraced within the world and all our understanding is always contextual [1]. This is why all our theoretical models apply to certain contexts. This is also why we so often find that our subjectively plays an important role when we have to judge between such models – our own conditionedness determines which model we prefer. In this regard we may even speak of “narratives” – our understanding of “truth” is always a human endeavour, a way in which we as finite humans describe some contextual perspective in human language. This is especially true in those academic fields where the same subject matter allows for various interpretations [2].</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">I now suggest that the different moral theories described above be viewed in these terms. They all involve some kind of application in different moral contexts. Insofar as we may take all “events” of understanding as narratives – as human stories (interpretations) that are true for us – we may recast these moral theories as moral narratives which apply within certain contextual situations. The difference between moral and other narratives is that the first involves an “ought” insofar as human actions are concerned whereas the second involves an “is” insofar as we belong to our world. The first regulate our moral experience, the second our non-moral experience.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">As is the case with all human experience, we always understand and apply issues of morality within our current cultural and historical context. Nobody has a truly “objective” moral view on the world – there is no such thing as absolute objective morality. Morality always finds expression within certain ethical contexts.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><b>The idea of moral revolutions</b></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">When we have various narratives, one may find that these sometimes serve conflicting interests. As such one may have various interpretations of the same situation or insofar as morality is concerned: various moral narratives that compete for recognition. This is especially relevant when various groups in society try to promote their moral narrative at the cost of other such narratives. This may lead to open conflict. When one narrative which guides society’s thinking is replaced by another, we would have some kind of revolution. When one moral narrative replaces another we may speak of a moral revolution. To understand this better we may start from the idea of scientific revolutions viewed from a Kantian perspective.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Again, I want to start the discussion in this section with Kant’s philosophy. One may have a situation where a conceptual structure (theoretical model) which applies to one context is later complemented by another more sophisticated one which applies to more complex contexts. An example is Newton’s theory which applies to classical contexts and Einstein’s theories which apply to similar but more complex situations. When such models guide the scientific paradigm of the day, one may find a situation when the simpler model is replaced by the more sophisticated one as happened when Newton’s theory was replaced by that of Einstein. Thomas Kuhn referred to this as a scientific revolution.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">In Kant’s philosophy, there are actually two ways in which we may judge particular situations. The one is through a “determinate judgment” – when we judge that a certain particular does indeed belong to some universal. This is the kind of judgment that applies in the case of the scientific theories of Newton and Einstein discussed above. In this case, some kind of theoretical model or rule (set of rules) serves as the norm in guiding our judgment whether something belongs in that category. In the framework of morality, this would be a rule that governs our actions. I call these “idealist” approaches: where some ideal (model/rule) is applied to some kind of context. Within moral theory, one may think of Kant’s Categorical Imperative.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">The other kind of judgment is called “reflective judgment” [3]. Kant discussed this in some detail in the <i>Critique of the Power of Judgment</i>. This is when we are confronted with situations where we are not able to make a determinate judgment. Sometimes we may have some kind of hypothesis that governs our research, but we are not in a position to conclude that this is indeed true of the things that we are studying. In the natural sciences, this is applicable to quantum physics where Niels Bohr’s “quantum postulate” is such a guiding principle. This postulate is part of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">In general, one may suggest that the various interpretations of quantum theory fall into this category. Although quantum theory is confirmed (through determinate judgment), the way in which we should understand that theory is not. In this case, physicists are often not concerned about which interpretation is correct – they merely work in pragmatic ways to maximise the usefulness of their experiments for scientific purposes.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">In the framework of morality, this may refer to some guiding principle for human actions in situations where simple moral principles such as “You shall not kill!” do not apply (war situations, in minimising but not eliminating human loss etc.). When we have very complex situations where we can do no better than to estimate what works in that context, we may use some kind of guiding principle. The utilitarian approach would typically be used in such contexts where the guiding principle is to “maximise” utility in establishing the greater good. Insofar as such approaches are grounded in pragmatic considerations, one may call them “realist” approaches [4,5].</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">When these narratives become widely accepted in society, be they idealist or realist in nature, they become the “rule of the land” – also on the moral front. There was a time when utilitarian principles guided societies all over the ancient world. The reason was simple: in contexts where one’s own or a group’s basic survival is at stake, you try to maximise your chances of survival. As such you try to promote the well-being of your group, often at the cost of other individuals and groups which constitute a radical “other”. In our day and age, Western society, for the most part, applies normative principles in accordance with Kant’s Categorical Imperative. As such all rules guiding society are such that they respect people's dignity – that everyone is treated as an end in itself (being of value as a human being) [6].</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">When we consider Biblical morality, one gets the distinct impression that the moral principles guiding the Old Testament are very different from those governing the New Testament. This is, in fact, true: the relation of old Israel with her neighbours was guided by utilitarian principles whereas the Church follows the “Golden Rule” that Jesus gave (Kant’s Categorical Imperative is merely a repackaging of this rule). One may even propose that the transition from the Old to the New Testament involved a moral revolution! To the extent that the Western world became Christianized it moved from a realist utilitarian morality to an idealist Christian morality.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444;"><img alt="File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 079.jpg" height="320" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_079.jpg/456px-Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_079.jpg" style="text-align: center;" width="243" /></span></div>
<center>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 550px;">
<colgroup><col width="550"></col> </colgroup><tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: none; padding: 0cm;" width="550"><div class="western">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: none; padding: 0cm;" width="550"><div class="western">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Moses with the Tablets of the Law - Rembrandt Van Rijn (1606-1669)</span></div>
<div class="western">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</center>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><b>A Christian morality</b></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">At this point, some readers may object and say that the same Biblical values govern(ed) both old Israel and the Church. Didn’t the Ten Commandments prefigure Christian values – and didn’t Jesus say in the Sermon on the Mount that those values would always be applicable? This is in fact true. When I say that the transition from the Old to the New Testament involved a moral revolution, I am not saying that certain values were not important throughout this transition. Rather, it is the way in which those values were applied in the context of the time that is very different.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">When we want to understand the idea of “timeless” values within the context of a changing cultural world, we have to start from the basic question: What is “morals”? The word “morals” is derived from the Latin “moralis” which means “manner, character, proper behaviour” and to some extent from the Greek “nomos” meaning “law”. As such morals are the rules/laws for proper behaviour. The corresponding Greek word “ethos”, which means “character”, shows to what extent the Greeks connected good behaviour with good character (as we also find in Aristotelian ethics). In the Biblical context, we know that the Ten Commandments served as “moral laws” for the Israelites. In the New Testament, these are grouped together under the Golden Rule. This, however, does not mean that true morality is a set of rules. No, it is demonstrated in actions in accordance with divine love.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">The way that these very same moral values – say “You shall not kill!” – are applied in society depends on the general approach to morality as determined by the context. In old Israel, where a utilitarian approach was followed, all the rules were interpreted within this general context. Since survival was the main issue, the individual was always subordinate to the absolute authority of the elders or king who made decisions with that in mind. Although those who belonged to the extended family of Israel were accorded equal treatment before the law, the idea of “human dignity” was not yet established and punishment was severe.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Those who belonged to other nations – especially enemy nations which might have endangered Israel’s survival – were treated as enemies who had no moral standing. Kill or be killed was the rule – to rape, plunder or kill those from enemy nations was the general practice in the ancient world. Since the Israelites regarded the earthly world as belonging to the kingdom of God (or realm of the gods), there was no contradiction in executing the judgment of God on His enemies. Killing people in accordance with divine judgment was viewed on the same level as God Himself judging them for their sins (see [7] for a more detailed discussion of the problem of “divine cruelty” in the Old Testament).</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Critics often mention incidents of “divine cruelty” in the Old Testament to discredit the Bible as a source of divine revelation. Some think that old Israel should have acted in accordance with our moral principles – which these critics think have universal application. They expect that God should somehow have spoken to Israel in a way that would have been in radical conflict with their deep-seated culturally-conditioned values – and expect that they would have been able to make sense of that! They obviously would not have made sense of our values in the same way that we cannot make sense of theirs.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">The problem is that we are ourselves culturally-conditioned and it is impossible for us to understand those things. The philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) spoke of our “thrownness” in this regard – we are irrevocably blinded by our own cultural conditionedness. Think of it: only thirty years ago it was generally accepted practice in our society that those guilty of certain misdeeds were whipped with up to forty lashes! In my view, the cruelty in the Bible is actually a strong indicator that it originated in exactly the contexts mentioned.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">But let us move to New Testament values. What is unique to the New Testament is the idea that humans have special value in the eyes of God. God sent his son Jesus Christ to die for our sins (to state it simply; Joh. 3:16) because of His love for us. In the New Testament era, the idea of human dignity transformed the way that we regard people in general – every single person is regarded as having such dignity and should be treated as such with respect. Christian communities are to treat even their enemies in accordance with God’s love. Now, the command: “You shall not kill!” becomes a general rule that applies to all humans (some Christians would even say: to all circumstances).</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">When we now compare the Old and New Testament contexts, it is immediately clear that, although the very same moral principles applied/apply, the way in which they were/are applied are very different. Although one may accept that there are certain “archetypal moral values” such as “You shall not kill!”, these are always realised in some concrete context in accordance with some kind of overall moral approach, be it a utilitarian one or in accordance with the Golden Rule. <i>One can therefore not speak in any realistic manner of “objective morality” as something that applies to all contexts in the same way!</i> Even in the New Testament era, the application of the Golden Rule may lead to different outcomes since Christians have different ways of interpreting situations.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">So, what is the essence of morality? Is it just some archetypal values? Of particular interest in this regard is the fact that we do not find an “ought” in the animal kingdom – it just does not make sense! No animal ought to do anything. This means that morality is something that only concerns humans. Why would that be? The answer is simple: all morality – even that which involves utilitarian decisions – is grounded in the idea of human dignity. We are special in some way. The whole Christian message centres around this very basic idea: humans have special value – in the eyes of God.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">How would one explain this special value that we instinctively know that all humans beings have? In the Christian view, humans are different from animals in that they are made in the “image of God”, that is, that they have spirits which animals do not have. As such humans belong to the domain where the competing principles of good and evil always require some “choice” [8, 9]. Humans can decide whether to do or not to do what is good in accordance with moral principles. Actually, human dignity has as its exact counterpart the ability of human choice – since we have dignity we also have the ability to live in accordance with that dignity and to treat other people in accordance with their dignity.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">A practical outflow is that our whole criminal justice system operates on the basis of human choice. One may have all sorts of philosophical ideas about these things, but the bottom line is that the whole structure of any stable society is grounded on these principles. The Christian principles of human dignity and human choice are the basis of societal structure.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><b>Nature and natural law</b></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">There is, however, one outstanding issue. There are certain moral values that are seemingly in contrast with Biblical prescriptions but which are not in conflict with human dignity. Take, for example, the Biblical prescriptions for marriage. Although the Bible seems to insist on heterosexual marriage (see below), one may argue that homosexual marriage is also in line with human dignity. Does this mean that such values are merely cultural and are not true moral values? And: How would we be able to distinguish between these two kinds of values?</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">According to the Bible, God revealed Himself not only in Scripture but also through nature. St. Paul wrote a long argument in support of this in his Letter to the Romans, chapter 1:18-32. As such Christians always had a teleological view of nature as revealing not only the Creator God’s design as something beautiful but also his plan/goal for mankind. As such Scripture and nature complement each other – both reveal God’s prescribed order for human living.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">When St. Paul discusses relations between the same gender, he refers to affections – both of women and men with others of the same gender – in its “natural use” as well as “that which is against nature” (Rom. 1:26, 27). What does he mean by this? In the context of the whole section which focuses on God revealing His purpose in nature, there cannot be any doubt that he refers to the fact that the natural use of sexuality has a <i>purpose</i>: to produce children. This does not mean that the “natural use” of sexuality excludes enjoyment of sex, but rather that God’s order is that it should be confined to the context of heterosexual marriage.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">When one excepts that this is the God-ordained order of things, then same-gender sexual relationships, which are exactly the inverse of heterosexual relationships, can only be viewed as built upon another basis, which is also found in nature, but which is always rejected in the New Testament as being in conflict with living through the Spirit, namely carnal “lust” or carnal desires (Rom. 1:27). In St. Paul’s analysis such “love” is not “natural affection”, but rather “vile affection” (Rom. 1:26, 31). Even when this kind of sexuality is brought within the framework of the marriage – taken as a Christian kind of bond between two people – it would fall outside the order that God revealed in nature. As such natural law and nature – i.e. natural (carnal) desires – stand forever in conflict with each other.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">One can now easily see how cultural values differ from moral values – all true moral values flow from the basic principles of natural law – which include human dignity as a basic moral value underlying all moral law – whereas cultural values belong to certain cultural contexts. In this regard St. Paul sometimes mentions that he gives his opinion in these matters but that they are not to be taken as divine commands (1 Cor. 7:12). The only true moral values are those in accordance with natural law as elucidated by Scripture – all other values reflect the ethics of human endeavour.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">The fact that St. Paul calls upon natural law when defending the exclusivity of the Christian marriage as being between one man and one woman – which is consistent with the earliest archetype of Adam and Eve – shows that he regarded it as an important point of departure in establishing Christian morality [10]. As such Christian morality could be contrasted with all other kinds of morality which humans may want to implement in accordance with their own ideas. Christian morality is obviously not the only kind of morality available to humans. So, why should we live in accordance with Christian morality? To live in accordance with Christian morality is in the final instance a choice. It is a choice to live in accordance with God’s purpose for our lives. </span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Critics have brought various kinds of objections against Christian morality. Some have tried to reinterpret Scripture in such a way that gay marriage is also allowed. Postmodernist hermeneutics allows for that since it does not treat the Biblical text with respect – the dignity of the authors in saying things is not respected (only that of the contemporary reader is of any real consequence) [11]. They use all sorts of deconstructionist methods to argue either that those views are not valid for our day and age or that the Biblical support for heterosexual marriage is not necessarily against gay marriage. Others argue that science – that is, true natural “laws” – supports the idea that a gay identity is somehow determined by genetic or physiological conditions. Again, the problem is that the scientific evidence is open to interpretation which allows for other readings of the facts.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Of particular importance to our discussion is the fact that Western society has embraced alternative lifestyles on an equal footing with the Christian marriage [12]. In our day the essential word is “choice”. And one may ask: Is choice in moral matters not exactly in line with the essence of morality? To choose what is right for you (maximising human freedom) and not to discriminate between people on any basis? This also seems to be in line with another basic human value: love. In this regard, the new rule of the game is “human rights”. All have the right to equal treatment and to order their private lives in a manner that they see fit. As this stands, it implies a balanced treatment of moral narratives on an equal footing in society.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Although this may seem fine – even for many Christians – there is one problem that is going to become more accentuated as the conflict between moral views grows. This is that human rights do not constitute a singular criterium in the same way as human dignity (as a basic value). As such human rights allow for subjective interpretations regarding the equality of such rights. When a conflict between rights arose, the justice system must decide which is more fundamental. In this way, the supreme courts become the final arbiter regulating morality, which is the reason why there is such an enormous struggle in the US regarding appointments to the Supreme Court – judges from a Democratic Party background, in general, follow a more pragmatic approach in making judgments. They take contemporary societal perceptions into account. As such this comes down to a utilitarian approach – determining which choice is for the greater good of the majority [13].</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">We are actually in the midst of a moral revolution in the Western world. All gloves are off and LGBT activists ("social justice warriors") lead a drive to secure their rights’ superior recognition. The real danger is that this may eventually lead to a situation where this infringes on the religious rights of Christians – which they may experience as discriminatory. As such it may not produce a neutral situation where all are respected, but rather where some are persecuted [14].</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">In my view, this moral revolution is going to lead to the persecution of Christians in the Western world in exactly the same way that many revolutions and counter-revolutions led to the persecution of opponents. The reason why this is likely to happen is that postmodern values are grounded in a postmodern ideology which has no mercy in establishing its dominance. From a philosophical angle, it would be ironic when postmodernism – which is supposed to criticise power and embrace the other – enthrones a new elite as the priests of a new moral order who persecute that other.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">In this essay, I give a short overview of issues concerning morality. Morality is one of the most difficult things to write about. Due to the psychological conditioning of our times, people are often afraid to say what they think in this regard! Sometimes persons are viciously attacked for their views – and it is not difficult to see on whose side the establishment media is. Although it is not easy to obtain a clear view as to what Christian morality means and how all the current moral issues relate to the larger moral picture, we should make an effort to always gain a better understanding.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">I show that we can always formulate various possible moral narratives which are applicable to different contexts. Some narratives – such as the Christian and postmodern ones – are in direct conflict with each other. They view the same things very differently. Some of the issues, for example, those concerning a gay lifestyle and identity, are complicated. One may, however, assert that the essential feature of human morality is choice. In the end, we have to say that our identity is never given, it is always something that we are able to rework and change. Even in the face of great challenges on many levels, we are able to establish an identity of our own choice [15]. In the Christian view, there are no limits to what God can do in helping us in this process [16].</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">I argue that we are in the midst of a moral revolution in the Western world. Most people are aware that things are changing and that the outcome may have serious consequences for their lives. All revolutions are in the end about power – to overthrow the current order and to gain power. This may have very bad consequences for Christians over the long term. Still, many sit on the fence. Many Christians think that promoting “love” cannot be a bad thing. The problem is that the line between love and hate is sometimes much closer than one thinks. </span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[1] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/06/science-and-atheism.html">Science and Atheism</a></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[2] We find this even in the natural sciences where various interpretations of quantum physics are possible. The kind of interpretation that one prefers is determined by your own conditionedness, that is, your particular cultural and scholarly education (and even your particular psychology!).</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[3] Gadamer does not distinguish between these two kinds of judgment. In his view, these cannot be sufficiently distinguished. In my view, they serve an important purpose in allowing us to distinguish between idealist and realist (pragmatic) approaches in all understanding.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[4] In international politics we may regard the ideal of a rule-based world as an expression of an idealist approach whereas the realist guiding principle of geopolitics serves governments well in trying to maximise their power in certain geographical contexts. These two approaches were in conflict during President Obama’s second term when he tried to assert a rule-based international order whereas President Putin followed a realist geopolitical approach. These came into conflict insofar as Crimea and Syria were concerned. Obama made the mistake of thinking that others are somehow constrained to follow the idealist approach propagated by the West - and in the process, the West lost significant ground to Russian, Iranian, Chinese and other interests. </span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">These two approaches may also govern domestic politics within a society where groups adhering to them may come in conflict in the context of political revolutions and counter-revolutions such as those seen during the Arab Spring.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[5] Although I take Kantian morality as normative and Utilitarianism as pragmatic, this just concerns the manner of application. Utilitarianism is actually also normative – but I read this in the sense of “guiding principle”, not as a “categorical” rule.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[6] Even in our day and age there are societies that primarily use a utilitarian approach to morality. We find it especially in autocracies, where the application of all moral principles is subject to the survival of the group which is in power. In such cases, those with opposing views are regarded as a radical other and are not accorded the same moral value than those from the ruling clan.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[7] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/08/die-probleem-met-goddelike-wreedheid-in.html">Die probleem van Goddelike wreedheid in die Ou Testament</a></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">How would one explain the Old Testament practice of "the ban"? I would suggest that this is an example of a moral dilemma being resolved through the principle of utilitarian ethics. The use of the "ban" was directly related to Israel's survival, not merely as a nation but especially the survival of the faith in Yahweh - and was necessary to ensure that the Messiah would be born. The reason for the ban was, in my view, to prevent the worship of other gods eventually leading to the extinction of the true faith in God. We find situations in Israel's history when that nearly happened and when the House of David (from which the Messiah was to be born) nearly became extinct (2 Chron. 11). (A good outcome seems to have been very sensitive to the initial conditions, as we find in the "butterfly effect"). The ban was practised in the context of war and must be understood as an expression of the judgment of a sovereign God over sin (exactly as we find regarding his final judgment). The ban belongs to the cultural milieu of the time where survival often led to the killing and the wiping out of whole peoples. </span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">One may ask: Was there no alternative? Is God not great enough to overcome such dilemmas in another way? In my view, God has restricted the expression of his power when he created the cosmos and this can be seen in the evil being done in history. When Jesus as the Word of God became a man (in the Christian view), his divine nature was also curtailed in some ways (his omnipotence, his omniscience). We also see that when Jesus endured the cross to bring about an eternal salvation. In my view, God has restricted himself in allowing the natural flow of things since the creation in his battle with Satan. As such, the ban belongs to a cosmic "chess game" in which the rules have been fixed. God can overturn the table but he chooses not to do that.</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">The main problem is that we cannot in any way truly understand ancient morality for the simple reason that we are culturally conditioned within our own time. This is expressed by the philosophers </span><span style="color: #444444;">Martin Heidegger with his concept of </span>thrownness<span style="color: #444444;"> and Thomas Kuhn with his idea of paradigms. </span><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">The philosopher Immanuel Kant (in his antinomies) have shown that one may have conflicting settings which could both believe themselves to be right in a final sense. This is due to the restricted nature of our human understanding [17]. We can never understand the morality of the ancients and when we think that they should have kept our values (God should have intervened in this way!) is to think in terms of some kind of "objective" morality which does not exist. </span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[8] In Kantian philosophy the human soul belongs to the noumenal realm governed by spontaneity – which is what makes the freedom to choose possible. As such the soul does not belong to this material world – it belongs to another world which Kant also describes as the world of our future hope. I argued elsewhere that the noumenal realm is merely a new conceptualization of the old idea of a spiritual world (or spirit world) [18]. As such our soul somehow includes an eternal spiritual aspect (the human spirit) – which would be what gives humans special value above animals and which also enables them (at the same time) to make free choices (since it belongs to the realm of freedom). Christian morality includes human dignity as well as the human choice to live in accordance with the moral law.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[9] Some critics think that a good God who exists but do nothing while humans do evil is a contradiction in terms. If He is almighty (i.e. God), why does He not do away with all evil? The problem here is with the constrained nature of our human understanding. These critics have to prove that this is indeed a true dichotomy and not a false one, which they can obviously not do. In my view, it is, in fact, a false dichotomy. A good God may exist along with evil in the world just as spontaneity and determinism co-exist in our world (as we know is the case since the discovery of quantum physics).</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[10] One may ask: If gay marriage between two consenting adults is consistent with our human dignity, why should one accept a further narrowing of decent marriage practice in accordance of St. Paul's interpretation of natural law to only include heterosexual relations - especially since one may read natural law as making relations between people of the same gender possible in the first place? At this point, the issue of Biblical authority enters the discussion. Christians ascribe authority to Biblical authors such as St. Paul on the grounds that the Bible is divinely inspired. As such it reveals God's Will for us.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Biblical Criticism, which rejects the idea of the divine inspiration of Scripture, at the same time rejects the authority of the Bible in such matters. Traditional Christianity, which asserts the divine inspiration of Scripture, takes St. Paul's writing as authoritative. Insofar as Biblical Criticism has undermined traditional Biblical morality within the context of the current moral revolution, one is reminded of the story of Red Riding Hood and the wolf.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[11] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/04/part-1-can-we-still-believe-bible.html">Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective</a></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[12] There was a lot of discussions recently about so-called “fake news” and a “post-truth” world. In the US, the establishment media and the Trump administration accuse each other of producing a false presentation of things. Although there are obviously certain “facts” of the matter, some things are not so clear-cut and intentions are also important. News always involves an element of interpretation. Over the last few decades, the establishment media has actually become biased in a very subtle way, not insofar as basic news is concerned, but in enforcing a certain worldview which is much more in line with LBGT rights than Christian values. This means that they are not a neutral player in society. They influence people – one may speak of the mind-forming media. As such they stand in exact opposition to the Trump administration’s presumed Christian viewpoint. One may even suggest that the fight about the interpretation of many other issues, in the end, serves to promote a particular moral view of the world.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[13] When these dangers are recognised, the leaders of society should work together to find a golden middle way. Although this may not be easy and everybody would not be happy in the end, it may result in all religious and moral views being respected in society. I would recommend an approach which does not bring these positions into conflict with each other as we find in the US, but where harmony is established for the greater good and prosperity of all.</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[14] Any morality based on animal altruism must explain on what principle the "other", regarded as the enemy (as a danger to the survival of the herd), would be safe in their moral world. When human dignity (which is primarily a Christian concept based on the uniqueness of humans in differentiation with animals) is dropped as guiding principle, it is difficult to see what would stop animal morality (eliminating the "other"). Even "human rights" are (at least to some extent) based on human dignity. </span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">In an unChristian world, one may foresee situations where "human rights" might not be strong enough to protect the "other" since these rights have a certain arbitrarity to them insofar as they might under certain circumstances be suspended (when competing rights are infringed upon). One may think of situations where the "other" lose their rights due to perceived transgressions based on majority views (for example, when alternative views are rejected in emotionally loaded terms such as "hate crimes"). In that case, "human rights" would become a repressive measure within a utilitarian system (see [6]).</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[15] Atheism and gay activists collide when they assert that our lives are somehow mechanistically determined.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[16] There are many testimonies of ex-gays who embraced Christian morality. See the dvd "Such were some of you" (1 Cor. 6:11).</span><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[17] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/03/science-and-our-restricted-human.html" target="_blank">Science and our restricted human understanding</a></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">[18] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/11/science-and-spiritual-realm.html">Science and the spiritual realm</a></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Dialoger</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br />The author is a scientist and philosopher (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy and science. </span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-64148708890266875492017-06-01T05:56:00.000-07:002019-08-01T06:28:12.274-07:00Science and Atheism<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"><i>In this essay, I focus on the seemingly close relationship between science and atheism. Why is that so? I argue that the primary reason is that certain scientists and most atheists share a common modernist philosophical framework that goes back to the Enlightenment. I discuss the historical reasons for this situation and show why current philosophical thinking rejects that view as discredited. I present a better philosophical framework - a middle-of-the-road approach between modernism and postmodernism - that includes not only science but all the human sciences, the hermeneutical disciplines and even art in its embrace.</i></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In the context of the conversation between Christians and atheists, we now come to another important issue, namely the fact that many scientists - especially natural scientists - are also atheists. I think most people would concur that this observation is correct. This immediately introduces the question as to why this is the case? Does it mean that scientists as experts know better than other people what is true in metaphysical matters? Or is it merely the critical stance that scientists take towards their object of study which influences their stance towards religion? What is the reason for the seemingly close relationship between atheism and science?</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Although there are many possible answers that people may give to this question, I believe that the one that really goes to the bottom of the issue involves a certain philosophical perspective which such atheistic scientists have on the world. It is true that many scientists are not well-educated in philosophy and are not even aware of the philosophical presuppositions that they bring to science, but there nonetheless cannot be any question that for historical reasons, science was and is strongly influenced by the modernist philosophy which stood at its cradle.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I argue in this essay that the reason why so many scientists are atheists is that they share the modernist philosophical framework which originated in the Enlightenment – which is also the case with many other atheists and agnostics who take them as role models. So, the actual question is one concerning such philosophical frameworks. In a previous essay, I considered atheism and Christianity in terms of their metaphysical worldviews (i.e. in thinking about the world as it "really" is; part 3). Now I consider them in the context of philosophical thinking.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In my view atheists strengthen their standing in society through their association with science. When most people think of science, they think of a no-nonsense, objective methodological approach that goes beyond all subjective opinions. Through its association with science, atheism is often also cast in such terms. The problem is that this is actually a case of honour by association, where atheism gains some honour in society due to their close relationship with science (which is a fallacy in thinking).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When one, however, understands that the real reason for the relationship between atheism and science (to the extent that this is true) is a common discredited philosophical framework, the situation changes a lot. What I assert is that there is no direct relationship between atheism and science except that, for the most part, atheistic scientists such as Richard Dawkins (and their followers) adhere to an outdated philosophical perspective.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In this essay, I am primarily concerned with the basic philosophical frameworks that govern contemporary thinking, especially modernism (Enlightenment humanism) as viewed in the context of our postmodern era and how this relates to the atheist-Christian conversation. (As always) I work from a Kantian angle to bring these perspectives into focus – showing that both modernism and postmodernism belong to the extremes of philosophical thinking.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I also show how we may use Immanuel Kant’s philosophy in combination with that of Hans-Georg Gadamer to establish a middle of the road philosophical approach in which science, the human sciences, the hermeneutical disciplines and even art are all part of one coherent outlook on life. I show that whereas atheism is closely connected with modernism and religious plurality with postmodernism, Christianity finds its natural place within the space between these extremes. As such Christianity is - in my evaluation - more in line with a balanced philosophical understanding of our world than any of the other metaphysical worldviews.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>Modernism – a historical perspective</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When we consider the issue of modernism in science and elsewhere in society, it is important to remember that this term can be understood in various ways. In this essay, I am only concerned with the contemporary understanding of the word as a reflection on the thinking of the modern era from the perspective of our postmodern era insofar as society has moved beyond modernism.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">As such modernism is understood in the context of the reaction of postmodern thought (but not only postmodernism, as we will see) against the ways of thinking that belonged to the so-called modern period (from the Enlightenment to the middle of the twentieth century), in some way as its direct opposite. So, the term modernism refers to a philosophical school of thought which originated in the modern period – it is retrospectively so applied. Although modernism lost its prominence in current philosophical thought, it is still alive and well in certain circles in the UK and US.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What does modernism mean? By modernism, I refer to the Enlightenment ideal of achieving absolute objectivity in science. Within modern philosophy, the idea developed (starting with René Descartes (1596-1650)) that science could obtain some Archimedean point from where the observer could achieve an objective perspective on the subject of inquiry. In philosophy, the pursuit of this ideal of absolute objectivity reached its climax in the neo-Kantian and Logical Empiricist (Logical Positivist) schools of thought during the first part of the twentieth century.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The impact of the Logical Empiricists was the greatest – especially in the Anglo-American world. On the one hand these proponents of a “scientific philosophy” valued logic and mathematics, on the other they were the true heirs of British empiricism. They accentuated the “scientific world conception” and articulated the scientific method and a scientific conception of philosophy as a liberation of the mind from the "metaphysical shackles that keep society down", especially in the context of culture. They had an enormous influence on Analytic (English) philosophy and the philosophy of science. One may even say that the spirit of the movement still has adherents. Many philosophers and lay people took one of the founders of this school, the atheist Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), as a role model.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The central feature of modernism is that science can obtain an objective view of the world in which all non-objective and subjective perspectives are removed. As such science is the only true measure of reality available to us – all other measures are suspect since they do not adhere to strict scientific standards and cannot be verified (the verifiability criterion [1]). This means that all of human life – including the human sciences and hermeneutic disciplines – should be measured only in terms of science.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In practice, this led to a scientism view on reality – "objective" science alone can be trusted since it is the only true and objective measure of reality. As such "objective" science was and is used to make pronouncements about the totality of existence. All other perspectives are considered to be mere “metaphysics”. There cannot be any space for God or gods in this view. In this way, modernism inspired not merely to a certain philosophical goal – that of absolute objectivity – but also an atheistic worldview based on that. Modernist science and atheism were both grounded in the modernist philosophical perspective.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This elevation of the ideal of objectivity to be the measure of all reality led to a reaction which is especially pronounced in postmodernism, originating already in the work of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) but which only became a large movement and framework of philosophical thought during the second part of the twentieth century. Whereas modernism is primarily concerned with science, postmodernism takes its impulse primarily from art. As such we may consider postmodernism as the heirs of the romanticism of post-Kantian philosophy.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When the French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard for the first time used the word “postmodern” in his booklet <i>The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge</i> (1979), he argued for a plurality of narratives as standing opposed to so-called “metanarratives” (one overarching narrative), of which that of the sciences is one of the most important ones. Instead of one objective meaning, we find that a plurality of meaning is celebrated in postmodernism as we find, for example, in the work of Jacques Derrida.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Since its inception, the postmodern philosophical perspective found wide acceptance not only within the arts, the hermeneutical disciplines and the human sciences in general, but especially (in the context of our current discussion) within the sphere of cultural and religious diversity. As such it is often asserted that all religious narratives are true in some way (Lyotard even celebrated the pluralism of the many gods of paganism in contrast with the one God of Judeo-Christianity). It has been argued that, since we as humans do not have an objective view on Truth (objectivity), there is no solid ground for us to assert the truth of one religious narrative over the other.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Although some atheistic scientists view postmodernism as the only alternative to their way of thinking – and rejects it outright as unscientific – this is actually a false dichotomy. There are philosophical perspectives that cannot be grouped with either of modernism or postmodernism. As such we may take a closer look at the criticism of modernism without implying that postmodernism is the answer.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>A critique of modernism [2]</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Although the Logical Empiricists saw themselves as the heirs of the Enlightenment, they at the same time knew that science made a dramatic leap forward when Newton's theory was replaced by Einstein's theories. One may think that Einstein’s theories are merely a more sophisticated understanding of the world which built upon that of Newton, but that is not the case. As Thomas Kuhn argued in his well-known <i>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</i> (1962), the shift from Newtonian science to that of Einstein involved a true revolution in which a whole paradigmatic view of the world was replaced with another. And one should not forget that Newton was wrong in some ways – think of the measurement of the orbital motion of the planet Mercury.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This place the question of objectivity at centre stage. The modernists originally believed that Newton’s theory gave an objective view of the world, but they were wrong. How do we know (or prove!) that future generations would not also find fault with Einstein’s theories even though they are obviously much better than that of Newton? There is no way to show that Einstein's general relativity is a true measure of what reality is like (other more sophisticated theories which view the world differently have been proposed) even though it is obviously consistent with results within certain contexts. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In fact, we have a competing theory in the form of quantum physics which view the world dramatically different from Einstein’s general relativity. Although scientists try to reconcile these two perspectives on the world, that does not change the fact the one is basically deterministic and the other non-deterministic. These are directly contradicting principles and there is no generally accepted view as to how these are to be reconciled. This merely accentuates the fact that our knowledge of the cosmos is limited and that we do not have an objective view of it.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Scientists often mention that the scientific method guarantees that data is correct and repeatable in experiment – even in quantum physics. There can be no doubt that this is indeed the case. The problem is, however, that one of the interpretations of quantum physics connects the outcomes directly with the involvement of the observer (even though this cannot be “proven”). Furthermore, even though “objective” data is obtained, the primary question is how that data is to be understood. What does it mean insofar as our understanding of the workings of the universe is concerned?</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Since quantum entities are outside empirical reach during their pre-measurement phase, we do not really understand them. The mathematical equations which describe them do not place them in proper space in the case of quantum mechanics or proper space-time in Quantum Field Theory, but in an abstract Hilbert space (or abstract space-time manifold), which is irreducibly complex insofar as it can only be expressed in complex numbers. Science can only gain a direct understanding of things if they are presented in space-time – which is not the case with these quantum entities which merely “appear” in space-time when measured (in which case their characteristic behaviour have changed). As such, it eventually became clear that the verifiability criterion of the Logical Empiricists was not only untenable (quantum entities cannot be verified in their pre-measurement phase; the same is true for gravitational fields) but is itself in fact unverifiable!</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This problem of the empirical access of quantum entities is also the reason why there are various well-known interpretations of quantum physics – none of which can claim to provide an objective understanding of our world (for example, the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohm's interpretation, Von Neumann's observer interpretation, the many-worlds interpretation and a Kantian interpretation [3]). So, although we have “objective” data, an objective understanding of that data (and therefore knowledge as to what that means) is beyond the reach of science. In fact, science has absolutely no idea what lurks in the world of quantum physics! Dark matter and dark energy have become household terms – but science does not know much of that either. In contrast with the view of the Logical Empiricists, the idea of the “metaphysics of science” has become an established feature of quantum physics in the philosophy of science.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The same is true for the human “sciences”. Although the scientific method is generally used, we have no idea what an objective understanding of such matters would entail! As is the case in quantum physics, such scientists are forever doomed to interpret the data – and there are about always various possible interpretations that present themselves. The result of this problem in science was that the Enlightenment ideal of absolute objectively has long since been dropped from serious discussion.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In fact, the ideas of the Logical Empiricists in this regard had been thoroughly discredited in current philosophical thinking. This, however, does not stop many scientists and atheists from (unconsciously) using this philosophical framework as the basis for their pronouncements about the nature of our universe. In fact, it often seems that they are not even aware that scientism is merely another metaphysical worldview – which falls into the very same category as religion! To the extent that they use contemporary science to say something about the “true” nature of our world – which according to them do not include God or gods (spiritual entities) – they engage with metaphysics. This is a metaphysics built upon an outdated modernist philosophical view about science.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>Towards a viable philosophical model</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In my view, the Kantian philosophical framework provides us with a middle of the road approach which does not only account for objectivity in science, but also for a viable understanding of the human sciences and humanities in general. Not only does it provide us with a balanced philosophical perspective of life (when we read Gadamer’s philosophy as expanding the Kantian project – see below), but it is also consistent with the Judaeo-Christian worldview.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The challenge for atheists – since modernism has been discredited – is not only to provide a viable philosophical framework which is not merely agnostic (as we find, for example, in Bas Van Fraassen’s Constructive Empiricism [4]) but which also provides us with positive tools for understanding our world. As I discussed previously in another essay (see part 3 of this series), atheists and agnostics may get away with not providing any consistent metaphysical worldview based on some kind of philosophical perspective, but that is not in tune with their appreciation of science in which our only measure of truth lies in testable theories – metaphysical ones, included.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Some readers may find it strange that I call upon an Enlightenment philosopher such as Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) to present a view that rejects modernism. There is, however, good reasons to reject any identification of Kant with modernism. Although Kant accentuated reason in a way that was typical of his age, his theory of knowledge – which grounded Newtonian science and any kind of mathematical science, for that matter – is not one in which absolute objectivity feature. The reason is simple: in Kant’s view the observing subject (the thinking I) is grounded in the noumenal self (of which we cannot know anything) and objects are grounded in the noumenal realm, which means that we can never fully explore their true reality!</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When Kant speaks of “objectivity” (or “truth”) he has something very specific in mind, namely that the empirical data which are given in our intuitions (as particulars) are brought under the rules given by our concepts (as universals) through determinate judgment (see part 2). So, when we judge that certain data conform with our theoretical model, we may say that we have achieved “objective” knowledge in that regard. This process, however, is not singularly determined – one may have data within certain contexts agreeing with simple models and data in other more complex situations agreeing with more sophisticated models (Kant nowhere says anything contrasting this). In this way, we may think of Newton’s theory as describing objective reality in classical contexts and Einstein’s theories as describing objective reality in relativistic contexts.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What is more, I argued elsewhere (part 4) that we may view Kant’s conception of “noumena” as consistent with quantum entities since Kant’s noumena are outside our forms of intuition, namely space and time. Although Kant argued that we cannot gain any knowledge of noumena, I previously also argued that Kant’s system may be reworked in such a way that it is consistent with quantum physics (part 4). In that case, we may gain knowledge of quantum entities in the context of their appearance in space-time, i.e. when they are observed. This is consistent with the work done by Hernán Pringe in his <i>Critique of the Quantum Power of Judgment</i> (2007).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<img alt="Image result for gadamer image" src="http://hilobrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/gadamer3.jpg" height="265" width="400" /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<center>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 302px;"><colgroup><col width="302"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr><td style="border: none; padding: 0cm;" width="302"><div class="western">
</div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td style="border: none; padding: 0cm;" width="302"><div class="western">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002)</span></span></div>
<div class="western">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</center>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What about “objectivity” in the human sciences? At this point, I bring the philosophy of Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) into play. In his monumental work <i>Truth and Method</i> (1960), Gadamer presents his philosophy in terms of a hermeneutical understanding of the world in which the absolute objectivity of modernism in neo-Kantianism and elsewhere is rejected (this is an essential feature of the book) [5]. He asserts that all our interaction with the world – in the arts, the hermeneutical disciplines, the human sciences and even science itself – is always interpretation. When we understand something, we always interpret.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Gadamer takes the idea of the game or playing as a dynamic whole which embraces the human subject as a point of departure. He applies this to our human way of existing in the world, in which all experience is verbal in nature. In linguistic experience, our concepts “disappear” behind that what they bring to speech in our understanding of objects (p399) [6]. All understanding may be regarded as an “event”, as a “mode of being”, which is an interpretation within the context of experience. As such all meaning is understanding that involves application in some concrete situation, which Gadamer calls “concretization” (p328).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I suggest that the Kantian conception of “truth” (objective knowledge), which I discussed above, may be understood in terms of Gadamer’s idea of “concretization”, which is also understood in terms of the kinds of truth that we encounter in interpretation. As such it is important to remember that Kant’s concept of cognition is not first of all concerned with scientific cognition, but with cognition in the context of experience in general (it is only secondary applied to science). Although Gadamer’s philosophy is concerned with our cultural and historical conditionedness (and Kant not), this is not in conflict with the Kantian position but includes it as precondition since Kant thinks in terms of the basic “forms” of our understanding and intuition before any experience (as well as before our cultural and historical conditionedness), which find expression exactly within the context of experience.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In Kant’s philosophy, our gaining objective knowledge is possible only insofar as our concepts (understanding) are synthesized with our intuitions through the intermediate role of our imagination. As such the productive imagination produces images in accordance with a schema, i.e. the rules governing this process, in such a way that they are consistent with the object to be presented in intuition. This process involves the play of the productive imagination within the framework of the rules governing the process. It is not only our understanding that is actively involved in the achievement of knowledge, the idea of “play” is very much part of this process.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Clearly, the Kantian conception of the process which results in our obtaining truth (gaining “objective” knowledge) is consistent with Gadamer’s idea of understanding viewed as play in the context of games structured according to rules [7]. In fact, I think that Gadamer’s idea in this regard may have originated in Kant’s philosophy, which had a great influence on Gadamer’s own work. We may, therefore, think of Kant’s concept of our obtaining knowledge in Gadamerian terms as an “event of understanding” within the context of human experience [8].</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">One may ask: What is gained by reworking the Kantian system within the context of Gadamer’s philosophy. Well, in this way the Kantian approach can be expanded from the natural sciences to the human sciences and hermeneutical disciplines. <i>What is especially important about the Kantian system, is that it provides us with a measure in which “objective” knowledge can be distinguished from mere illusions of knowledge through the use of determinate judgment.</i> Now, this very same measure may be applied to the human sciences and hermeneutical disciplines without trying to achieve absolute objectivity. This merely ensures that the various interpretations that we allow in these fields are consistent with the data – and that one does not end up with an anything-goes situation of which postmodern philosophy is often accused.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When we view judgment as part of the “event of understanding”, this new approach provides us with the tools through which we can distinguish between sensible interpretations, where the conceptual models agree with the empirical facts, and non-sensible interpretations where this is not the case, not merely within the framework of the natural and human sciences but also in the context of hermeneutical disciplines where texts are so considered. Following Gadamer, we may say that in this case, the hermeneutical “object” refers to the subject matter of the text that is interpreted. The interpreter and interpreted are brought together in a “fusion of horizons” in which the horizon of the reader is fused with that of the text in the event of interpretation.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When viewed from a Kantian angle, we can now distinguish which interpretations are sensible ones and which are not, i.e. whether the interpretation is consistent with the data presented in the text as well as that belonging to the historical horizon from which it originated [9]. The difference with modernist philosophy is that there is no aspiration towards absolute objectivity – various sensible interpretations of the situation (such as in quantum physics or the human sciences) may be possible. This approach does not value the plurality of (subjective) interpretation in its own right as we find in postmodernism. On the metaphysical front, one may use this philosophical approach to even evaluate metaphysical narratives insofar as these describe our engagement with the world, including religious texts such as the Bible.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>Good and bad hermeneutics in Gadamer</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When we consider scholarly fields such as history or textual hermeneutics, Gadamer’s approach show why the modernist approach is not valid. The main feature of the modernist approach is that it tries to obtain objectivity – which results in “historical consciousness” aimed at “a truly historical viewpoint on everything” (p225), where scholars think of themselves as standing apart from history or the texts that they study. Gadamer argues that all interpreters are not only situated within a certain culture (which may include a scholarly paradigm) but also brings certain fore-understandings to their study. Nobody can achieve a purely “objective” perspective [10] – we are all affected by the traditions and texts that we are studying. Gadamer calls this “historically effected consciousness”.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When it comes to the study of the Biblical text, the modernist grounding of the historico-critical method resulted in an understanding of that text in which the prejudices against Biblical tradition (so clearly on display in many circles during the Enlightenment) were very much part of the mindset of the scholars who thought of themselves as “objective”. As such they totally rejected the witness testimony recorded in the text [11] and replaced that with reason. Gadamer writes in <i>Truth and Method</i>:</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In general, the Enlightenment tends to accept no authority and to decide everything before the judgment seat of reason. Thus the written tradition of Scripture, like any other historical document, can claim no absolute validity; the possible truth of the tradition depends on the credibility that reason accords it. It is not tradition but reason that constitutes the ultimate source of all authority. What is written down is not necessarily true. We can know better: this is the maxim with which the modern Enlightenment approaches tradition and which ultimately leads it to undertake historical research. It takes tradition as an object of critique, just as the natural sciences do with the evidence of the senses...This is the point at which the attempt to critique historical hermeneutics has to start. The overcoming of all prejudices, this global demand of the Enlightenment, will itself prove to be a prejudice, and removing it opens the way to an appropriate understanding of the finitude which dominates not only our humanity but also our historical consciousness.” (p274, 277; see also p342)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This means that the traditional approach of Biblical Criticism is deeply flawed – it afforded itself a misplaced superior position above traditional scholarship [12]. In fact, its whole method in approaching the Biblical text – and all the conclusions drawn from that which became part of its academic paradigm – is suspect and may even be regarded as discredited insofar as it is based on false premises. One is not amazed that some students and scholars who followed this approach to the Bible have themselves become agnostics and even atheists – this seems to be the logical outcome if one takes modernism to its logical conclusion. Biblical Criticism regarded as a "scientific discipline" had an enormous impact on societal thinking regarding the Bible, which is why so many people merely accept that it is an untrustworthy witness of history.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In a rather strong critique of the historico-critical method Gadamer writes:</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">A person who believes he is free of prejudices, relying on the objectivity of his procedures and denying that he is himself conditioned by historical circumstances, experiences the power of the prejudices that unconsciously dominate him as a vis a tergo. A person who does not admit that he is dominated by prejudices will fail to see what manifests itself by their light. It is like the relation between I and Thou. A person who reflects himself out of the mutuality of such a relation changes this relationship and destroys its moral bond. A person who reflects himself out of a living relationship to tradition destroys the true meaning of this tradition in exactly the same way. In seeking to understand tradition, historical consciousness must not rely on the critical method with which it approaches its sources, as if this preserved it from mixing in its own judgments and prejudices. It must, in fact, think within its own historicity. To be situated within a tradition does not limit the freedom of knowledge but makes it possible.” (Ibid p354)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What Gadamer suggests is a totally different approach. It is not an approach which accepts tradition uncritically, but one which makes an effort to really listen to the text and the tradition from which it originated as if one is partaking in a conversation. As such one does not try to “dominate” the text from a superior position; rather, you allow the text to speak on its own terms: “Hermeneutics in the sphere of philology and the historical sciences is not ‘knowledge as domination’—i.e., an appropriation as taking possession; rather, it consists in subordinating ourselves to the text's claim to dominate our minds.” (p310)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In this essay, I discuss the relationship between modernism and atheism. Although I do not think that all atheists hold a modernist view of reality, I have argued that most of them probably do. That include atheists and agnostics from both a natural and human sciences background – where the modernist approach has blinded many into thinking that "objective" science is the only true measure of reality. Since the idea of an objective view of the world has been discredited in science (especially in quantum physics) and modernism in philosophy, we know today that this cannot be the case. The problem for atheism is that the general rejection of modernism has effectively discredited the kind of atheism built upon that way of thinking!</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The challenge for atheists – as I see it – is to produce a balanced philosophical framework that takes account of all the complexities of life which is consistent with their metaphysical worldview. In contrast, Christianity has always been able to show that it aligns itself with good philosophy. Historically this had been the case in the acceptance of Platonic philosophy in the Augustine tradition and the acceptance of Aristotelian philosophy in the Thomasian tradition.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Closer to our own time, we may remind ourselves that Kant himself was a Christian and that he tried to argue for the Christian viewpoint regarding metaphysics and morality. During the twentieth century, some of the greatest philosophers of hermeneutics such as Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur were Christians. The interesting fact is that these philosophers always presented a sensible philosophical framework which stood the middle ground. I showed how we may read Kant from a Gadamerian perspective to bring his ideas in line with contemporary thinking. This provides a healthy and sound philosophical perspective in which the Christian worldview can flourish [13].</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1] “A statement is meaningful if and only if it can be proved true or false, at least in principle, by means of the experience - this assertion is called the verifiability principle [aka the 'verifiability criterion of meaning']. The meaning of a statement is its method of verification; that is we know the meaning of a statement if we know the conditions under which the statement is true or false.” <a class="western" href="http://www.loyno.edu/~folse/logpos.htm">http://www.loyno.edu/~folse/logpos.htm</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2] This is absolutely not a detailed discussion of the topic. In the context of this essay, I present merely some basic aspects insofar as it is relevant to the topic and presentable to a lay audience.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3] See <a href="https://www.academia.edu/38283361/Kant_Noumena_and_Quantum_Physics" target="_blank">Kant, Noumena and Quantum Physics</a>. Published in <i>Contemporary Studies in Kantian Philosophy</i> 3 (2018) (94 pages) (Willem Mc Loud)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4] Constructive Empiricism stands in contrast with Logical Empiricism. It holds that science aims only at the truth of observable aspects of the world (not unobservable aspects) and that its theories aim to be empirically adequate: “a theory is empirically adequate exactly if what it says about the observable things and events in the world is true” (van Fraassen in <i>The Scientific Image</i>, 1980, p12).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5] Since Gadamer is not well-known to those from the analytic philosophy tradition, I include various quotes from his work in this essay. He writes in <i>Truth and Method</i> regarding understanding: “understanding is never a subjective relation to a given ‘object’ but to the history of its effect; in other words, understanding belongs to the being of that which is understood” (pxxviii) and “The alienation of the interpreter from the interpreted by the objectifying methods of modern science, characteristic of the hermeneutics and historiography of the nineteenth century, appeared as the consequence of a false objectification” (p312). When one’s belonging to history is acknowledged, understanding nonetheless still involves (as in the two-aspect interpretation of Kant’s philosophy) that particulars be brought under rules in judgment. He writes in <i>Truth and Method</i>: “Understanding, then, is a special case of applying something universal to a particular situation.” (p310)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[6] In contrast with the Logical Empiricists for whom only statements verifiable through empirical observation are cognitively meaningful, Gadamer takes our whole being in the world as meaningful. He writes: “Our verbal experience of the world is prior to everything that is recognized and addressed as existing. That language and world are related in a fundamental way do not mean, then, that world becomes the object of language. Rather, the object of knowledge and statements is always already enclosed within the world horizon of language. That human experience of the world is verbal does not imply that a world-in-itself is being objectified. The world of objects that science knows, and from which it derives its own objectivity, is one of the relativities embraced by language's relation to the world.” (Ibid p447)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[7] There is a difference between Kant’s concept of the “play” of the imagination, which is a formal conception in terms of our human faculties, and Gadamer’s concept of play, which views it as a dynamic whole (p53). However, insofar as Kant’s concept is not merely subjective, one can easily see that it is in line with that of Gadamer’s conception of “playing” insofar as our understanding is concerned. Gadamer’s observation in <i>Truth and Method</i> that “play has its own essence, independent of the consciousness of those who play” (p103), is also true of Kant’s conception of the play in the imagination of which we are not particularly conscious.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[8] In the traditional two-object interpretation of Kant’s philosophy, the object in our mind is distinct from the real object in the world – as such the thinking I stand in some way opposed to the object of cognition situated outside our minds. The two-aspect interpretation sees it differently: the very same object is regarded from two perspectives, namely as presented in perception as well as beyond that. The last view implies that concepts do not bring form to empirical data given in intuition (as in the two-object view); the form of the empirical object is already included in its presentation in intuition. As such cognition involves merely a particularization of the generalized <i>a priori</i> “object”. In this case, we may regard cognition as an event of understanding through determinate judgment which is not so much reflective as it is synthetic (to use Kant’s expression). For both Kant (in the two-aspect view) and Gadamer, this involves a concretization (to use Gadamer's terminology) in which a judgment is made in the context of experience that includes both subject and object in one dynamic process. Insofar as Kant’s concept of cognition is included in Gadamer’s concept of “concretization”, we may say that Kant’s epistemology becomes part of Gadamer’s hermeneutics. As such the scientific model of epistemology based on Kant’s work which centres on methodology is forever subservient to our hermeneutical being in the world.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[9] The distinction between sensible and non-sensible interpretations is only possible insofar as concepts are included in the process of understanding. When they are not – such as in the evaluation of art – the mentioned criterion does not apply. In this case, we may remind ourselves that Kant distinguished between two kinds of judgment in the process of understanding things. The one is a determinative judgment which is used in cognition; the other is a reflective judgment which is used in evaluating art. In this case, Kant allows in his philosophy of aesthetics in his <i>Critique of the Power of Judgment</i> for the free play of the understanding and imagination without the involvement of concepts. This draws the line between interpretations in the framework of “knowledge” claims and that where no knowledge claims are made. This does not mean that only scientific knowledge is allowed – there may be other sources of knowledge such as divine revelation which I discuss in the next part of the series.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[10] Gadamer writes in <i>Truth and Method</i>: “In contrast to the mere givenness of the phenomena of objective consciousness, a givenness in intentional experiences, this reflection constitutes a new dimension of research. For there is such a thing as givenness that is not itself the object of intentional acts. Every experience has implicit horizons of before and after, and finally fuses with the continuum of the experiences present in the before and after to form a unified flow of experience.” (p237)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[11] Gadamer writes: “Even as the scholarly interpretation of the theologian, it must never forget that Scripture is the divine proclamation of salvation. Understanding it, therefore, cannot simply be a scientific or scholarly exploration of its meaning.” (Ibid p327).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[12] See also my own essay in this regard: <a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/06/a-critique-of-biblical-criticism-as.html">A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[13] What is the task of the Christian philosopher? In my view, it is not to return to the scholastics or to become embroiled in the petty thinking of analytic philosophy, but to work towards exploring the middle position in philosophy in the footsteps of the great philosophers mentioned. I do not think that Christian philosophers should try to prove the correctness of Christianity (Kant and Nietzsche have dismantled that avenue); they should rather show that the Christian narrative is consistent with reality, worthy to be trusted and makes more sense than any of the other competing metaphysical narratives.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Dialoger</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The author is a scientist-philosopher (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, and science.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Science, Philosophy, and God. Part 1: <a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/11/the-problem-of-spontaneity-in-quantum.html">The problem of spontaneity in quantum mechanics</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Science, Philosophy, and God. Part 2: <a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/03/science-and-our-restricted-human.html">Science and our restricted human understanding</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Science, Philosophy, and God. Part 3: <a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/science-and-metaphysics-in-search-of.html">Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapo</a>t</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span lang="zxx">A new argument for the existence of God</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Science, Philosophy, and God. Part 4. <a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/11/science-and-spiritual-realm.html">Science and the spiritual realm</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Science, Philosophy, and God. Part 5. <a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/03/in-defense-of-soul.html">In defence of the soul</a></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px;">Science, Philosophy, and God. </span>Part 7: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-rapture-different-views.html" target="_blank">Science and spiritual intuition</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px;">Science, Philosophy, and God. </span>Part 8: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-christian-and-evolution.html" target="_blank">The Christian and Evolution</a> </div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<br /></div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-58851378051852353862017-05-21T04:35:00.000-07:002018-06-29T06:12:25.038-07:00Posts on this blog<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Life is like a puzzle. Although one may think that the available pieces make sense, there may be other pieces which change all of that! This is the purpose of this blog: to provide information and interpretations on a wide range of issues, enabling readers to make sense of our world (and even their own lives) in an honest, coherent and sophisticated manner. "S/he who seeks will find!" The essays (some in Afrikaans) are written by the scientist, philosopher and author Dr Willie Mc Loud [1] (and other authors) with the general reader in mind and engage with all sorts of interesting (and difficult) topics regarding science, philosophy, religion, the ancient Middle Eastern world, eschatology, current events and other topics, bringing it all together in one coherent worldview. The essays argue for a balanced Christian worldview - between the extremes of secular Christianity and simplistic interpretations - providing a fresh and original perspective that is not a mere repetition or rehearsal of the usual views.</span></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br />The blog is dedicated to all those people who are willing to read with an open mind and to carefully consider all the various nuanced aspects of the issues at hand. All those who identify themselves with the doubting Thomas may find in the pages of this blog the answers to the questions with which they are struggling. Many of the essays are written especially with you in mind. When we really listen to each other, we may find true answers in real conversation. At the same time, the essays provide tools, knowledge, and information to engage with others in everyday conversations about their faith. Take time and work through the topics which interest you and you may find the journey truly rewarding. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></span></span> <span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">To facilitate the reader's access to these essays, the most important ones (all with links to the essays) are listed below according to the topic they belong to. Essays which are "highly recommended" are marked with an asterisk. Readers are welcome to use the information, share or forward the essays and make use of them as they see fit [2]. </span></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">1. Science, Philosophy, and God</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 1: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/11/the-problem-of-spontaneity-in-quantum.html">The problem of spontaneity in quantum mechanics</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 2: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/03/science-and-our-restricted-human.html">Science and our restricted human understanding</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 3: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/science-and-metaphysics-in-search-of.html">Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot</a>. (*)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> Presenting a new argument for the existence of God</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 4. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/11/science-and-spiritual-realm.html">Science and the spiritual realm</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 5. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/03/in-defense-of-soul.html" target="_blank">In defence of the soul</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/08/a-critique-of-archaeology-as-science.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">A critique of archaeology as a science</span></a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/03/part-2-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">An archaeological perspective on the Bible</span></a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/02/presenting-new-ancient-middle-eastern.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Presenting a new ancient Middle Eastern chronology</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/06/a-critique-of-biblical-criticism-as.html" target="_blank">A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline</a> (*)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/04/part-1-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">A hermeneutical perspective on the Bible</a> (*)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/10/is-spirit-world-more-than-idea.html" target="_blank">Is the spirit world more than an idea?</a></span><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">2. Origins in the Book of Genesis</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Intro: <a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/09/the-book-of-genesis-sumerian-hypothesis.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;">The Book of Genesis - the Sumerian hypothesis</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 1: <a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2013/03/does-creation-narrative-of-genesis-1.html" style="color: #33aaff;">Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #666666;">Part 2: </span><a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2013/07/adam-and-eve-were-they-first-humans.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;">Adam and Eve: Were they the first humans</a><span style="color: #666666;">?</span> (*)<br /><span style="color: #666666;">Part 3: </span><a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-garden-of-eden-was-it-real-place.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;">The Garden of Eden: Was it a real place?</a></span><br />
<div style="color: #666666;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 4: <a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-serpent-of-paradise.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;">The Serpent of Paradise</a></span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 5: <a class="western" href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2015/06/reconsidering-fall.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;">Reconsidering the Fal</a>l</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Part 6: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/02/the-origins-of-satan-ancient-worldview.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">The ancient worldview: the origins of Satan</a><br /><span style="color: black;">Part 7: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/06/who-is-elohim.html" target="_blank">Who is Elohim?</a> (*)</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 8: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/04/the-ancient-history-of-genesis-4-11.html" target="_blank">The "ancient history" of Genesis 4-11: Myth or history?</a></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/07/an-introduction-to-ancient-sumerian.html" style="color: #666666;" target="_blank">An introduction to ancient Sumerian religious literature</a><span style="color: #444444;"> (Johan Coetser)</span></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: large;">3. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: black;"><span style="color: #666666;">Eschatology</span></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 1: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/04/bible-prophecy-predicting-distant-future.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Bible prophecy: predicting the distant future?</a></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 2: </span><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/05/the-rise-of-final-world-empire.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">The rise of the final world empire: the different views</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 3: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/05/the-final-seven-years-different-views.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">The final seven years: the different views</a></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 4: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/10/the-final-antichrist-different-views.html" target="_blank">The final Antichrist: the different views</a></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 5: </span><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/10/when-can-second-coming-of-jesus-be.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">When can the Second Coming of Jesus be expected?</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/04/a-very-remarkable-prophecy.html" target="_blank">A very remarkable prophecy</a> (*)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/05/the-jews-people-of-god.html" target="_blank">The Jews: the people of God?</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">4. Afrikaanse essays</span><br /><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/08/die-probleem-met-goddelike-wreedheid-in.html" target="_blank">Die probleem met Goddelike wreedheid in die Ou Testament</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/11/kan-ons-nog-in-die-hemel-glo.html" target="_blank">Kan ons nog in die hemel glo?</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/02/die-limiete-van-argeologie-en.html" target="_blank">Die limiete van argeologie en teksstudies: die uittog</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/04/om-te-glo-of-nie-te-glo-nie.html" target="_blank">Om te glo of nie te glo nie</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2011/11/wetenskap-en-geloof.html" target="_blank">Wetenskap en geloof</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/10/paradigmas-in-konflik-bybelwetenskap-vs.html" target="_blank">Paradigmas in konflik: Bybelwetenskap vs tradisionalisme</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/07/die-kerk-is-by-n-kruispad-n-ope-brief.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;">Die kerk is by 'n kruispad: 'n ope brief aan die kerk</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/01/middelgrond-in-die-geloof.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;">Middelgrond in die geloof</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/01/wat-moet-christene-in-n-tyd-soos.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;">Wat moet Christene in 'n tyd soos hierdie doen?</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/02/hoe-moet-christene-die-huidige.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;">Hoe moet Christene die huidige paradigma-verskuiwing in die samelewing benader?</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/01/die-tien-horings-van-daniel-7-waarna.html" target="_blank">Die tien horings van Daniel 7 - waarna verwys dit?</a><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/03/die-nuwe-toring-van-babel.html" target="_blank">Die Nuwe Toring van Babel</a><span style="background-color: transparent;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/10/die-goderaad-in-hebreeuse-tradisie.html" target="_blank">Die goderaad in Hebreeuse tradisie</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">5. </span><i style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;">Discovering the Keystone</span>, Solving the Riddle of The Red Serpent after 40 years</i><span style="font-family: inherit;"> by Guillaume Brouillard (Griffel Media, Cape Town, 2009). </span></div>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Intro. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2011/08/red-serpent-background.html" style="color: #33aaff;" target="_blank">The Red Serpent: Background</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Ch. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2015/01/1-manuscripts.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;">1 The Manuscripts </a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Ch. 2 <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/01/2-pierre-plantard.html" target="_blank">Pierre Plantard</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Ch. 7 <a href="http://book%20discovering%20the%20keystone%2C%20solving%20the%20riddle%20of%20the%20red%20serpent%20after%2040%20years%20by%20guillaume%20brouillard%20%28griffel%20media%2C%20cape%20town%2C%202009%29.%20t/" target="_blank">The Fountain of the Magdalene</a><span style="background-color: transparent;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/01/debussy-as-grand-master-of-priory-of.html" target="_blank">Debussy as Grand Master of the Priory of Sion</a> (Pieter Smal)</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/06/priory-of-sion-is-back.html" target="_blank">The Priory of Sion is back</a> (book review)</span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;"><span style="font-size: large;">6. Spiritual/geestelik</span></span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #666666;" />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/11/meeting-god.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Meeting God</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/09/the-power-of-god.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Power of God</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/07/wrong-choices.html" style="background-color: white; color: #33aaff;" target="_blank">Wrong choices</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/12/something-or-someone-is-missing.html" target="_blank">Something or Someone is missing?</a> (Dr. Francois Carr)</span><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/04/a-message-for-church.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">A message for the church</span></a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/08/god-hoor.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">God hoor</span></a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/04/die-profeet.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Die profeet</span></a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">7. Dialogistics/Apologetics</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/01/towards-dialogistic-approach.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Towards a new dialogistic approach</span></a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/12/engaging-with-atheists-and-agnostics.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;">Engaging with atheists and agnostics</a><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/science-and-metaphysics-in-search-of.html" style="color: #888888; text-decoration-line: none;">Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot</a></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/09/postmodernism-faces-its-first-great.html" target="_blank">Postmodernism faces its first great challenge</a></span></div>
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/05/biblical-inspiration-in-postmodern-world.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Biblical inspiration: in a postmodern world</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/05/faith-and-reason-finding-balance.html" target="_blank">Faith and reason: finding the balance</a></span><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/01/the-importance-of-septuagint-in.html" target="_blank">The importance of the Septuagint in Biblical studies</a><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/09/darwins-doubt.html" target="_blank">Darwin's Doubt</a> (book review)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/09/the-god-impulse.html" target="_blank">The God Impulse</a> (book review)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">8. Current events</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/07/brexit-what-to-expect.html" target="_blank">Brexit: What to expect</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/04/a-new-iranian-empire-is-rising.html" target="_blank">A New Iranian Empire is rising</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/07/the-european-union-forever-rising.html" target="_blank">The European Union: forever rising</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/06/is-third-world-war-brewing.html" target="_blank">Is a Third World War brewing?</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">[1] Books by Dr. Willie Mc Loud (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy, MBL):</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Akteurs in die Laaste Drama, 'n studie van Openbaring 13 en 17</i> (1989)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Alles omtrent die "New Age" </i>(1990)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Op pad </i></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>na Armageddon, 31 bepeinsings oor Openbaring en ander Bybelprofesie</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;"><i>ë</i></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> (1995)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Alles omtrent die opkomende Antichristelike orde</i> (2000)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Discovering the Keystone, Solving the Riddle of The Red Serpent after 40 years</i> (Griffel Media, 2009)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">(with </span><span style="background-color: white;">Guillaume Brouillard)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Die Arabiese Opstande</i> (Griffel Media, 2011)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>Op soek na Abraham en sy God</i> (Griffel Media, 2012)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">[2] Due recognition is required according to accepted copyright practice. Since all the essays include a reference to the author, they may be freely shared, distributed and circulated.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-46469626689240919872017-05-04T00:03:00.000-07:002019-08-01T06:21:02.309-07:00The Jews: the people of God?<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>Israel has become a highly contested topic in recent years. For some, the Jews are the people to whom the divine promises belong which God had made thousands of years ago to the Biblical fathers – which include the land of Israel. For others Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and its bombardment of Gaza are major injustices – why should the Palestinians who have been living in the land for centuries pay for the Jews’ religious views? Should Christians pick a side?</i></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The declaration on 14 May 1948 of Israel as an independent state was one of the most important geopolitical events of the previous century. It had an enormous impact on the politics of the Middle East where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had become one of the enduring realities of that ancient region. In time, Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians and the wars with its neighbours became a major bone of contention which affects many other nations.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Christians also have to make decisions: in general evangelical Christians support the Jews since they regard them as the descendants of Biblical Israel to whom God’s promises to the patriarchal fathers belong whereas Palestinian Christians – who were once in a majority in some parts of Israel – cannot understand how Israel can be absolved by other Christians from the horrific way in which it treats them. Although their plight was brought to the attention of Christians by the likes of Brother Andrew who co-authored with Al Janssen the book <i>Light Force, A Stirring Account of the Church Caught in the Middle East Crossfire</i> (2004), many Christians could not understand how he could “take the side” of the Christian Arabs. Somehow, for many people, everything is to be taken either as “for or against” in this fight for influence and survival.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In this essay, I bring Israel as a nation into focus within the wider context of Christian thinking. I give a short overview of the Christian-Jewish relationship through the ages. I also engage with some of the important questions regarding Israel’s destiny, such as: Are the Biblical promises regarding the land still applicable to the Jews? Do they still have a part in God’s plan? What should Christians do in the face of the plight of Palestinian Christians? Should Christians give their unconditional support to Israel irrespective of their actions? There are no easy answers but seeing the wider context could help.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Christians and Jews</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
One of the first things that the early Church had to figure out was what the relationship of the Church, as the redeemed people of God, was to the Jews who were the descendants of the Biblical Israel, the chosen people of God in Old Testament times. Already in the Patristic era (100-500 AD) did the church fathers came to the general conclusion that God had rejected the people of Israel and that they had no further role in his divine plan. They believed that although the Jews had the expectation to be returned to their land when the Messiah comes, that this was a futile hope. Since God had rejected them, that would never happen. In the view of these church fathers, the prophetic promises of restoration had all been fulfilled with the return from Babylon. Jerusalem would never be rebuilt.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-US">The relationship between the Jews and the Church was, however, no simple matter. Ever since the Church became an established entity apart from the Jewish nation late in the first century AD, Christians and Jews held conflicting claims about Jesus as Messiah and how that determined their relationship with God. The assertion by both that they were the true people of God eventually led to open hostility between them. Whereas there are some very negative comments about Jesus in the Talmud, many Christians regarded the Jews as “killers of God” who brought misfortune over themselves in accordance with the words recorded in the Bible: “His blood shall be on us and our children” (Matt. 27:25). We find this view already in the fourth century </span><span lang="en-US">AD </span><span lang="en-US">in the writings of church fathers such as </span><span lang="en-US">John Chrysostom.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Throughout the Middle Ages, the Jews were regarded with suspicion. The early second millennium AD saw the first persecution of Jews by Christians in 1096 AD when Jewish communities along the Rhine were attacked and many massacred during the so-called “Rhineland massacres” in the period leading up the First Crusade. Jews were sometimes accused of ritual murder and were expelled from many countries – from England in 1290, France in 1394 and numerous areas in Germany, Italy and the Balkan peninsula between 1350 and 1450. Jewish communities were often subjected to severe discrimination – having to wear something such as a badge and live apart in ghettos – and there were many pogroms against Jews.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Some Jews, however, were traders and bankers who were able to overcome the obstacles that Jews, in general, had to deal with in their everyday lives. Since the nineteenth century, some of these Jews rose to high positions in politics and society in general, especially in the UK and US. There were even those who became remarkably influential – many would remember the Rothschild family in this regard, who is to this day a force in international finance. This, however, led in turn to accusations that “the Jews” were conspiring behind the scenes.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
One of the important documents that is often mentioned in this regard is the so-called <i>Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion</i> which was first published in 1905 in Russia and in which a program to establish global domination is outlined. Related to this was accusations of Jewish involvement in the revolutionary movement of the early twentieth century in Europe, especially in the Russian revolution of 1917. One of the best-known works in this regard was Henry Ford’s <i>The International Jew</i> (1920), in which a series of articles which were first published in his journal <i>The Dearborn Independent</i> were reprinted. The story is told that the “Jewish media” published only pictures of Ford cars in accidents leading to the rumour that these were unreliable, which eventually forced the great magnate to reconcile with his enemies.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
During the early twentieth century, Jewish-Christian relations saw two very different outcomes depending on the countries involved. On the one hand, the Jews gained some real influence within the Anglo-American world which was predominately Christian. Here one may mention the Balfour Declaration of 1917 when the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, handed a declaration in which Britain promised Palestine to the Jews to Walter Rothschild, the second Baron Rothschild, and leader of the Jewish community, to be presented to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland [1].</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
On the other hand, anti-Semitism increased and led to the Holocaust during Adolf Hitler’s rule when millions of Jews were murdered. In some way, the Holocaust represents the culmination of a very long tradition of anti-Semitism in Europe. Of particular importance in this regard was the role of Pope Pius XII who’s actions with regard to the Holocaust is to this day a source of great controversy. Historians, in general, think that he was too cautious in his condemnation of Jewish deportations and Nazi crimes.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Image result for jews ghetto picture" src="https://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/photo/lc/image/07/07065.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Entrance to the Lodz ghetto during WWII</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Both the Balfour declaration and the Holocaust played a central role in the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. The Anglo-American support for the Jewish people and the country of Israel, in particular, was one of the important foreign policies which characterized the twentieth century. At last the Jewish people had a homeland where they were safe from persecution. For many Christians, this was the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy that Israel would one day be restored to their land.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>God’s promises to Israel</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
After WWII there was a lot of goodwill towards Israel throughout the Christian world. At the same time, the fact that Israel was restored in their original homeland forced the Church to rethink Israel’s role in eschatology. It seemed that the theology according to which God rejected Israel after the crucifixion and replaced her with the Church in his plan (called “replacement theology”) was contradicted by the facts on the ground. The new reality went straight into the face of that assessment. It was time to rethink the well-established views about Israel.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The Church’s actions over the centuries also came under scrutiny. Some argued that the way in which the Church treated the Jews throughout the Middle Ages prepared the way for the Holocaust. Pope Pius XII’s tempered reaction during WWII reinforced the view that the Roman Catholic Church had a deep-seated prejudice against the Jews. This placed pressure on the Church to change its attitude towards the Jews and reevaluate her spiritual relationship with them.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In the US the evangelical Christian community supported the Jew’s return to their original homeland and in time became one of the most steadfast allies of Israel. These Christians rejected the replacement theology. Instead, they developed a dispensational eschatology according to which God still has a plan for Israel. They took St. Paul’s words serious that the covenants belong to Israel (Rom. 9:4), that they are still “beloved for the fathers’ sakes” (Rom. 11:28) since the “calling of God is without repentance” (Rom. 11:29).</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The same apostle also writes in the same passage: “[B]lindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the [era of the] Gentiles come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins” (Rom. 11:25-27). This passage says that God still has a plan with Israel even though many of them have rejected Him as Messiah and that at the end of times they would come to salvation.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Christians who take Scripture as God’s Word serious have to acknowledge that God still has a plan with Israel – irrespective of how one reconcile it with one’s theology and eschatology. In this context, the events of May 1948 may be taken as confirmation that God is still keeping his side of the covenant with Abraham that He would give the land to his descendants as an eternal inheritance. The only problem was a practical one: large parts of the land were still in the hands of the Palestinians. These Christians, however, believe that God would eventually (during the Messianic Kingdom) give the land to the Jews in the same way that He did so after the exodus.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Not everybody accepted this interpretation of Biblical prophecy. Some kept to replacement theology. Others had doubts if the Israeli’s were the true descendants of Biblical Israel to whom the promises belong. This stems from the fact that the Jews intermarried with other nations during the long period of exile with the result that they do not share common physical traits. Some nations even converted to the Jewish faith without being of Semitic descent. </div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The Khazars, for example, were a semi-nomadic Turkic people from the North Caucasian region who converted to Judaism during the eighth century AD. Some think that the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe were descended from the Khazars and were therefore not “true” Jews. In fact, although some of them may be of such descent, the most were descended from Jews who lived in those areas for centuries - even from the time before the conversion of the Khazars. Many Jews also fled eastward after the persecution in the western parts of Europe. As proselytes were always welcome in Israel since ancient times, the conversion of the Khazars should not be taken as an important issue regarding the identity of the Israeli’s [2].</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Israel at the crossroads</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
When Israel became independent, the Western media was solid in its support for the Jewish cause. That has changed in recent years. Through the course of the last few decades criticism of Israel has increased. The handling of the Palestinians by the Israeli government has generated a lot of negative feeling. Even the large Christian community among the Palestinians had not been spared. Many have migrated to the West. Some even compare Israel’s rule over the West Bank with the Apartheid regime in South Africa. The wars with Hamas in Gaza in 2008-9, 2012 and 2014 and the many Palestinians killed in the bombardment have led to a lot of criticism of the Israeli government.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The result is that the pro-Israel sentiment of the post-WWII era has all but evaporated in a large part of the world. Whereas the Palestinians found it difficult to find a willing ear in the post-war period (even though some Arab states were close allies of the US) and the aftermath of the Holocaust gave the Jews a lot of sympathies, this had been slowly but steadily eroded over the last few decades. Today most EU countries have large pressure groups that support the Palestinian cause and most of those countries take a harder line towards the Israeli government.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Also, we live in an epoch where many people in the Western world (not to speak of the Arab world) do not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. In the postmodern world, people do not take the divine promises made to Israel serious. They only see that Israel occupies the land where the Palestinians and their ancestors have been living for centuries. As such this has become a paradigmatic case of injustice – and not even the injustice of the Holocaust is nowadays taken as a reason to let Israel off the hook. As such it is not only the usual anti-Semites that find a sympathetic audience; fighting for Palestinian rights has become a just cause.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
As is often the case in such situations, there are two sides to the story. Some Christians and Jews do not take these accusations against Israel serious. They feel that anyone under the same circumstances would have done the same – Israel has in fact been fighting a low-intensity war for many years against terrorists who do not mind to kill innocent people. The problem is that Israel’s actions are not only directed towards terrorists: innocent Arabs including Arab Christians have suffered a lot as is described very well in Brother Andrew’s book. Should evangelical Christians’ view about Israel blind them to the fate of their own brothers who live in extremely difficult circumstances?</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Christians who support Israel have to ask themselves how they reconcile their love for Israel with the outcome of Jewish actions in that land? How should they reconcile the divine promises with the injustice done by the very people who they regard as the “people of God”? These are not easy questions to answer. It is easy to take the Palestinian side and reject Israel’s identity as God’s people. But is that the right way for Christians to go?</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
We find that God did not absolve Israel from her unjust actions even in Old Testament times. In fact, the prophets spoke out against injustice and warned Israel when they served other gods – but that did not change the fact that they were His People. In my view Christians should take a similar approach: They should not whitewash Israel’s actions but they should also not lose their faith in God’s eternal promises that He would eventually bring them to salvation.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I expect that the tide would turn more and more against Israel. According to Biblical prophecy, there would come a time when Israel would be hated by all nations. This may be one of the reasons why they would gather in the end times to make war against Israel as we read in the prophet Zechariah:</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about… And in that day I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it… And it shall come to pass in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son” (Zec. 12:2, 3, 9, 10; see also Zec. 14).</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
When Jesus Christ returns with his Second Coming, Israel will indeed see the One that they have “pierced” when he was crucified. Then will they be reconciled with their Messiah. When we consider things in this light, we should pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Ps. 122:6) rather than siding with her enemies. Let’s not be caught on the wrong side of history.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In this short essay, I discuss Israel’s identity as the people of God to whom the divine promises belong. St. Paul is clear that God still has a plan for his people. This includes the fulfilment of the promise made to the fathers that God would give the land to them as an eternal inheritance [3]. Israel’s restoration in their land is therefore indeed of prophetic significance.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
When we accept Israel’s prophetic destiny, it does not mean that we have to accept everything that they do as right. Israel has done some great injustices over the decades since 1948, especially against those Christians who are also God’s people. As Christians, we should, however, not take side with the enemies of Israel. Even when we criticize the things they do (and it serves no good to always absolve Israel from all wrongdoing!), we should do so with the right disposition. We should pray for the peace of Jerusalem and the salvation of all the people living in that beautiful land.</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span lang="en-US">[1] “</span>His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2] There are also other views. “British Israelism”, for example, believes that the white people from the UK and US are descended from the ten “lost” tribes. They often regard themselves as the true heirs of Israel and view the Israeli’s as a mongrel race. There is, however, no evidence to support their claims regarding history. In fact, it is easy to show them wrong.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3] The </span></span></span>final fulfilment of God's promises to Israel regarding their land (insofar as their borders are concerned) would only happen during the Messianic reign of Jesus. </div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The author is a scientist-philosopher (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, and science.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-15274304246454803782017-04-04T03:26:00.001-07:002019-07-02T05:41:52.594-07:00The “ancient history” of Genesis 4-11: myth or history?<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><i>In this essay, I discuss the so-called “ancient history” at the beginning of the Book of Genesis – more specifically the post-garden stories. In general Biblical Criticism takes them as myth whereas traditional Biblical scholarship takes them as referring to real historical events. As before, I use the Sumerian hypothesis in my analysis of these stories. I show that the Biblical Adam, Enoch, the deluge, Nimrod and the confusion of languages correspond to similar stories in Sumer. What shall we make of this?</i></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Our study of the Book of Genesis now brings us to the post-Garden of Eden stories. These are found in Genesis 4-11. Together with the garden story, these belong to the so-called "ancient history", that is, the prehistory to the Biblical patriarchal tradition. In this part of the Book of Genesis, we read how Cain murdered his brother Abel, how Enoch was taken to heaven as well as about the Great Flood, the Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What should we think of these stories? Did they really happen? That depends on where they originated. Biblical Criticism assumes that the Book of Genesis was written relatively late in Israel's history – some even think that it was written during or after the Babylonian exile. In that case, the stories were merely taken from the Babylonian and other traditions. As such they were not part of Israel's own prehistory – they were taken from elsewhere and added before the patriarchal stories to give the (false) impression that Israel's history is as old as that of their enemies, the Babylonians. On the other hand, there is the traditional view that these stories are part of the authentic prehistory of Israel. The question is: Who is correct?</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Both of these approaches have its problems. Biblical Scholarship – which I discuss in some detail elsewhere [1] – is saddled with modernist presuppositions from its formative years which grounded the paradigmatic commitments of the discipline. Modernist scholarship wrongly assumed that they had some objective vantage point from which to “scientifically” evaluate the traditions of “primitive” peoples such as the Israelites. As such these Biblical traditions were taken – on grounds that had been thoroughly discredited in recent years – as having no value whatsoever as sources about ancient history.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Whereas traditional scholarship rejected this approach, some others venture to the opposite pole, understanding the stories in a way that stands apart from the historical context to which they belong. This led to interpretations which are in constant need of direct divine intervention to explain the seemingly unrealistic nature of the stories, for example, the story about the confusion of languages through which God is said to have created all the languages of the world. Although I accept that God’s interaction with his people included various miraculous events, it seems to me superfluous to call upon miracles to explain things for which perfectly natural explanations may be available – often unconvincing interpretations necessitates miraculous explanations.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In all the essays in this series, I work from the Sumerian hypothesis [2], which states that these stories were brought by the Abrahamic family from their homeland in Sumer to the land Canaan. I give various reasons to support this view. The reason why they show agreement with similar stories in Babylonia is that both traditions go back to a very early epoch in Sumer.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Since both the Hebrew and the Babylonian traditions belong to a shared Sumerian heritage, the correspondences and differences are easily explainable. I argue not only that the Hebrew tradition is authentic; I also argue that these early stories go back to real events in ancient Sumer. I show how some of the stories, such as the one about the confusion of languages, makes sense only when we understand the original Sumerian context.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>Where did the Biblical stories originate?</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When we want to examine the origin of the stories in the ancient history of the Book of Genesis, we have to carefully consider the literary style in which they are presented. We should ask where this same or a similar style is found in ancient literature – which would help us to place the Hebrew text within the appropriate epoch. We should also consider the ancient context in which these stories are said to have taken place to see if they are of historical significance.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The ancient history of Genesis 4-11 has a very distinct style which differs from that of the patriarchal history as well as the other historical narratives given in the Bible. As such there cannot be any doubt that this style is unique to this piece of Biblical literature. What distinguishes the ancient history is 1) genealogical lists of the earliest remembered forefathers, 2) particularly long lifetimes accorded to these people, some of whom are said to have lived for nearly a millennium, 3) short accounts of events related to some of these persons – some in-between the genealogies and others within the genealogies, 4) a Sumerian background for some of the stories (taking place in the land “Shinar”) [3].</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Readers who are acquainted with the Sumerian King List would immediately recognize a close agreement with that text – in line with the reference to that land in the text itself. The Sumerians were a people who lived in ancient Mesopotamia from the sixth (some would say fourth) to the late third millennium BC. They established a remarkable civilization and ruled for many years over the land. The Sumerian King List was probably compiled during the reign of King Utuhegal of Uruk during the end of the third millennium BC although the oldest copies found so far date from the time of the Isin dynasty early in the second millennium BC [4].</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The Sumerian King List was compiled from various king lists from earlier periods. Also included are the names of legendary kings mentioned in the epic tradition. As with Genesis 4-11, the list contains genealogies of early forefathers, some of whom also lived centuries-long lives as well as short comments about some of these figures. The difference between the texts is that the Hebrew text includes short stories between the different genealogical lists, whereas the Sumerian King List does not. This is, however, not too far removed from the Sumerian King List which also uses information from Sumerian stories (some of which correspond to the Biblical ones).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">One may also compare the Hebrew tradition with the Amoritic king lists from the Old Babylonian Period (during the early second millennium BC). In this case, the king lists of the historical kings were also preceded by the names of their forefathers. The difference is, however, that these lists do not ascribe such long lifetimes to these forefathers as we find in the Sumerian King List and one also does not find the short commentaries typical of that list. So, although the ancient history in Genesis serves as the preamble to the patriarchal narratives (of Abraham etc,) in a similar way that the Amorites’ list their forefathers before proceeding with the reigns of their kings, the correspondence with the Sumerian King List is much closer.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This clear correspondence between the ancient history in Genesis and the Sumerian King List forces us to consider two possibilities, namely that the Hebrew tradition which is recorded in the ancient history 1) was written during the epoch when that style was still in use, which would be some time during the early Old Babylonian Period (the time when Abraham is said to have lived), or 2) was written down many centuries after the Sumerian King List by an author who intentionally copied the style of that ancient document (which was not in use during the period of writing).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Let us first consider the first possibility. According to the Bible Abraham’s family originated from the city of Ur in Sumer. If we take this story serious as a true reflection of historical events [5], then this immediately explains why the Hebrew text has so much in common with the Sumerian King List, namely that it originated in the very milieu where that style was in use. All the stories in the ancient history (except the final one in Gen. 11, i.e. of Abraham's origins) belong to the period before Abraham’s own lifetime – as such, they would be part of an older tradition which was delivered in the contemporary style within the context of Abraham’s family. The slight difference with the Sumerian King List, in that the genealogies are interrupted by short stories, would be a special feature of the Hebrew tradition.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What about the second option, namely that the author may have imitated the style of the Sumerian King List? In my view, this option has serious problems. Why would the author try to imitate a style that had been out of use for more than a thousand years? Why do we not find any information from a Sumerian or Babylonian origin in this ancient history, including the story of creation (which also includes many Sumerian features – see part 1 of this series; the link is at the bottom of this essay), which belong to the post-Old Babylonian period as such! All the data in the ancient history in the Book of Genesis belongs to the Old Babylonian and older strata of tradition in Sumer.</span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px;"> (This does not include the reference to the “Chaldeans” [6], which I consider as a typical addition made by a later editor.)</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This absence of elements from the post-Old Babylonian tradition is especially obvious in the creation accounts which differ substantially from each other. This strongly suggests that the author wrote before the later developments in Babylonian thought took place (which include the idea that the champion of the gods created the universe from the body of the monster that he killed). Although one might find comparisons between the ancient history in the Book of Genesis and other later traditions on an ad hoc basis, this is not good hermeneutical practice. Although one can obviously not exclude the possibility that the Biblical author used such an ad hoc approach, any serious scholar should prefer an interpretation in which all aspects of the story are understood within one systematic and coherent manner - and this should explain the absence of post-Old Babylonian material in the Book of Genesis. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>On the trustworthiness of the ancient history in Genesis 4-11</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">We may now engage in more detail with the information in the ancient history of Genesis 4-11. Of special interest in this regard, is that the genealogies in the Book of Genesis incorporate data which seems to come from the Sumerian King List! Also, most of the stories find a direct equivalent in ancient Sumerian tradition. In fact, about all the main figures and events mentioned in the Hebrew text go back to such persons and events in ancient Sumerian tradition. I do not suggest that the Hebrews merely copied the Sumerian tradition. Rather, in my view, this suggests that this information belonged to a Semitic tradition handed down by the Abrahamic family – who is said to have originated in that land.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I now give a short summary of the information in the Hebrew text and then show how it agrees with the ancient Sumerian tradition (which includes an ancient Semitic tradition within Sumer itself).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">a) The garden story of Adam and Eve (Gen 2:4-3:24)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">b) The story of Cain and Abel (not found in the Sumerian tradition [7]) (Gen. 4:1-16)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">c) The story of Enoch, who was taken alive to heaven (Gen. 5:18-24)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">d) The story of the Great Flood (Gen. 6-9)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">e) The story of Nimrod who ruled in Uruk and Babel (Gen. 10:8-12)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">f) The story of the Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages (Gen. 11:1-9)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In the Sumerian tradition we have the following stories:</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">a) The story of Adapa – the earliest remembered person who brought civilization to the land</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">b) The story of Etana, who was taken on the back of an eagle to the abode of the supreme god</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">c) The story of the Great Flood</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">d) The story of Enmerkar who ruled in Uruk and Eridu</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">e) The story of the confusion of languages.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Although the Biblical stories have clear correspondences with those from ancient Sumer, there is no systematic account of events in the Sumerian tradition similar to that found in the Biblical tradition. We may, however, reconstruct Sumerian history in such a way that it is consistent with the Biblical account of events. This is quite remarkable because the Biblical author did not have a Sumerian outline to work from when he compiled his version of ancient events.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">So, how did the Biblical author know how to arrange his history – placing the personages in the correct historical context? An obvious answer is that we have an authentic tradition that really goes back to the relevant period. <i><b>It is difficult to see how a late author would have been able to do that! </b></i>This implies that the ancient history in Genesis 4-11 should be taken in exactly the way that it is presented, namely as the prehistoric tradition of the people of Israel that was handed down from generation to generation through the ages.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In this essay, I discuss the stories of Enoch, Nimrod and the Tower of Babel. I show the correspondence with their Sumerian equivalents; I also show how they fit into a viable reconstruction of the history of ancient Sumer. I do not discuss the story of Adam-Adapa – I did that in part 1 of the series. I also do not discuss the story of the Great Flood. I leave that for the next part.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>Enoch-Etana</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The first story to be discussed is that of the Biblical Enoch. According to the Bible Enoch was the seventh descendant of Adam. He is said to have been a holy man who was taken alive to the abode of God. Over time there developed an important tradition in Hebrew circles about Enoch which resulted in some books being written under his name somewhere between the third and first centuries BC. He is also mentioned in a few places in the New Testament.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The Biblical Enoch corresponds with the Sumerian Etana. According to tradition, Etana was the very first person to become king (called “lugal”, i.e. a warrior-king) in ancient Sumer. In the Sumerian King List, Etana is mentioned as the king of Kish, a city in the northern part of Sumer. Of special interest to our discussion, is the fact that the rulers of Kish seem to have been Semites. This would be consistent with the Hebrew tradition in which Enoch is remembered as an early forefather of the Hebrews, who were Semites.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The name Etana means "he who went up to heaven/An". According to the story of Etana, he was taken to the abode of the supreme god An [8] on the back of an eagle. At first Etana got frightened by the height, but eventually, he seems to have reached that heavenly destination (our available cuneiform text is broken at this point). This agrees with the story that Enoch went to the abode of God. The eagle in the Sumerian story may depict the divine Spirit.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There are also some differences between Enoch and Etana. According to the Hebrew tradition, Enoch lived three generations before the deluge; in the Sumerian King List, the dynasty founded by Etana is placed lower down after the deluge. How would one explain this? Various Sumerian scholars have mentioned the problems regarding the King List – especially the fact that the order of the various king lists in the King List should not be taken as a chronological order since the author, who lived many centuries after the events, merely added them together without knowing how they should follow each other and where they overlap.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Insofar as the date of Etana is concerned, we may probe a little deeper. It is interesting that the first dynasty after the deluge is said to be that founded by Meskiagkasher, the forefather of the House of Uruk. He is said to have been both king and priest. The problem is that Etana was supposedly the very first king who ruled in the land. How do we reconcile these differences? I would suggest that Etana ruled before the deluge and Meskiagkasher thereafter, in line with the Biblical tradition about Enoch [9].</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>Nimrod-Enmerkar</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The next person to be discussed is Nimrod. According to the Biblical tale, Nimrod was the son of Cush, the son of Ham, one of the sons of Noah who survived the deluge. That places him a few generations after the deluge. He is said to have become a mighty king – he was also a “mighty hunter”. His kingdom stretched from Babel and Erech (Uruk) in the south of Sumer to Akkad and Calneh (Nippur) and even to Nineveh, Rehoboth (Mosul), Resen (?) and Calah (later called Nimrod) in the north. He is typically associated with the events surrounding the Tower of Babel, not only since this city is mentioned as part of his kingdom, but also because his name may be interpreted as originating from the Hebrew word <i>mârâd</i>, which means “he rebelled” in accordance with the Biblical depiction of those events.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The Biblical Nimrod corresponds with the Sumerian Enmerkar. Enmerkar was a great king from the House of Uruk of whom various epic tales were told. He was one of the greatest legendary kings in the history of Sumer. The consonants in the first part of the name Enmerkar spells “nmr”, which may be vocalized as Nimrod. The last part of his name, “kar”, may be read as “hunter” [10]. The name Enmerkar may, therefore, be interpreted as Nimrod, the hunter.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">According to his stories, his family originated from the land of Aratta [the Biblical Ararat [11]) in the northern Zagros Mountains [12]. His father Meskiagkasher came from Aratta to establish himself in Sumer. This name may be shortened to Kash, which corresponds with that of Cush, the father of Enmerkar in the Biblical tradition. Enmerkar became a mighty king who conquered even the far-away land of Aratta to establish his rule over all of ancient Sumer and beyond. He is said to have built the city of Uruk in the area of the temple of An where his father originally settled. Various innovations are ascribed to him, among which is the first writing. He is also said to have brought the goddess Inana from Aratta to Sumer.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">These things belong to the Uruk period in Sumerian history, which followed directly after the deluge, which left a 2.7-3.7 meter thick layer of mud which was found by Sir Leonard Woolley at Ur. This is consistent with the Sumerian King List which places the rule of this family directly after the deluge. The Uruk period is the time during which the city of Uruk was built and when the first writing was developed which eventually led to the discovery of phonetic writing towards the end of that period. This is also what evidence for the goddess Inana's first attestation in Sumer suggest. Furthermore, towards the end of this period, the House of Uruk ruled over a very large geographic area to the north and west – this is usually called the period of the “Uruk expansion”. This is consistent with the literary tradition of Enmerkar. It is also consistent with the comments about Nimrod in the Bible.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There cannot be any doubt that there is a remarkable consistency between the Biblical tradition of Nimrod and the Sumerian tradition of Enmerkar – which refers to historical events during the Uruk period in Sumer. What is also interesting, is that some of the other names of the members of this family correspond with those in the Sumerian tradition. The Bible mentions a certain Raamah, meaning “Thunder”, as a brother of Nimrod. This corresponds with the Sumerian Lugalbanda, who was Enmerkar’s successor in the King List and who was identified with the “Thunderbird” (as part of the family of that bird) in one of the stories told about him. The Biblical Raamah had Sheba (“Seven”) and Dedan as sons. Sheba corresponds with the seven young men who are associated with Lugalbanda in one of his stories. Dedan may refer to Daos, a variant form of the name Dumuzi, the successor of Lugalbanda in the Ling List [13]. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></span> <span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The correspondence between the Biblical and Sumerian traditions regarding the historical Nimrod-Enmerkar suggests that the Biblical source material did not only include information from oral tradition (probably handed down in the family context) but also from the literary tradition of ancient Sumer, including from the Sumerian King List itself (see the detailed correspondence between personages belonging to the Sumerian Kash and Biblical Cush dynasties respectively). </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></span> <span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">We may now suggest that the correspondences between the ancient history of Genesis 4-11 and the King List imply not only that the original author of this source material was aware of that list and used a similar literary style, but also that he took it as guide for his own history writing which included data from the King List itself. The period during which this is most likely to have happened is the </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 16px;">Old Babylonian period (i.e. in the early second millennium BC) during which </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12pt;">the Sumerian King List would have served as the model for such history writing. The Biblical author obviously reworked this material to produce the ancient history that we find in the Book of Genesis.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>The Tower of Babel</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This brings us to one of the most interesting stories in the Biblical tradition, namely that of the Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages. The problem with the Biblical tradition is that the city of “Babel” was not on the map in the early period in which the Bible places this event, namely in the post-deluge period. So, how did the name Babel became associated with Nimrod and the story of the confusion of languages? The answer is actually quite simple: later authors such as the Babylonian priest Berossus (and the Biblical editor) referred to Eridu under the name Babel [14]. The reason is that both Eridu and Babylon was written as Nun.ki in cuneiform – resulting in this name being read as Babel in later times.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">One can immediately see that Eridu is meant. The Bible mentions the cities under Nimrod’s control in Sumer as “Babel and Erech [Uruk]”, which would refer to Eridu and Uruk as two of the most important cities in southern Sumer during that period – not mentioning Eridu would be very strange indeed (when we take "Babel" as Eridu then the Biblical list of cities also proceed more naturally from the most southern ones to those in the north). In accordance with the Biblical story, Eridu was a very important religious centre at that time where people from all over Sumer gathered to celebrate their festivals. It was known as the oldest sanctuary in Sumer and was rebuilt in the time of Enmerkar into a huge temple terrace (the typical ziggurat did not exist at that time) according to the literary tradition [15]. The building of the city of Uruk and the Eridu platform during the reign of Enmerkar is consistent with the Biblical story that the people built a city and a “tower” in Sumer in the time of the confusion of languages.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">What about the confusion of languages. This is also part of the Sumerian tradition where it was called “Nudimmud’s [Enki’s] spell”. It is mentioned in one of the stories about Enmerkar which date from the late third millennium BC. The appearance of this "spell" in a story about Enmerkar is consistent with the association between Nimrod and the confusion of languages in Biblical tradition. We read: “(In) the (whole) compass of heaven and earth the people entrusted (to him) could address Enlil [son of An], verily, in but a single tongue… (The) lord of Eridu [Enki] enstrangled the tongues in their mouths as many as were put there. The tongues of men which was one” [16].</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Where did this story originate? A simple explanation – which is maybe a too simplistic one – would be that the story was meant to describe how the various languages of the world came into being through one miraculous divine event. In the Biblical genealogy that precedes the story of the Tower of Babel, we read that languages came into being as humans became dispersed over the earth (Gen. 10:5, 31). This is indeed how different languages evolve. Since this stands in direct contrast with the explanation for the origin of languages given in the story of the Tower of Babel, we should ask ourselves if the typical interpretation of our story is correct? Maybe the original story was about something other than the origin of languages.</span></span><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Image result for tower of babel picture" src="http://www.artbible.info/images/valckenborch_babel_1568_grt.jpg" height="317" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">"Tower of Babel" by Lucas Van Valckenborch (1568)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In line with such an alternative reading we find that the Biblical author uses different words when he refers 1) to the tongues/languages (<i>lâshôwn</i>) that formed when humans became dispersed and 2) when he speaks about the confusion of language/speech (<i>sâphâh</i>). This may imply that two different things are referred to. Whereas the meaning of <i>lâshôwn</i> is obvious, <i>sâphâh</i> is not. The Hebrew word <i>sâphâh</i> literally means “lip” and refers to “speech” as the way in which we pronounce words. This way of pronunciation may refer to any particular way or convention in which words are pronounced.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In my view, the confusion of speech at the Tower of Babel – which I take as referring to the huge temple platform at Eridu – was not about the origin of different languages at all. It was about something different! There is an event at the end of the Uruk period that shows a remarkable agreement with the story of the confusion of speech. At that time it so happened that the Sumerians started reading their script in phonetic fashion. As such the convention of pronunciation changed.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Before the arrival of phonetic writing, the pictographic symbols of the Sumerians merely identified items in the context of accounting; now they were arranged in accordance with phonetic pronunciation. Before that time there was one unified convention for the pronunciation of the same symbols, namely that they had one meaning which referred to generally understood items of which the particular pronunciation was not important (they were pronounced differently by the various language speakers); the new convention of pronunciation involved combining such symbols in phonetic fashion in accordance with the way that we speak. Suddenly different language speakers – Semites and Sumerians respectively – read the combination of symbols in a totally different fashion which the others could not understand if they did not know that language. One can imagine that this would have led to enormous confusion.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">We now find that the change to phonetic reading at the end of the Uruk period can explain the upheaval at that time. This is the time when the long continuous rule of the House of Uruk came to an end. The new rulers of Sumer were from the House of Kish in the north. At that time there was a “considerable displacement of peoples” with many people abandoning the land [17]. At Eridu, the large limestone terrace was left deserted overnight [18]. This is also the picture given in the Bible according to which the confusion led to the dispersion of the people of Sumer all over the world.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In this short essay, I discuss the "ancient history" of the Book of Genesis. I argue that this preamble to the patriarchal traditions was part of a very old Hebrew tradition that was handed down in the midst of the Abrahamic family since the time when they left Ur in Sumer to migrate to Canaan. This would explain the remarkable correspondence between this Biblical tradition and the Sumerian King List insofar as both were written in a very similar style and refer to the same historical persons and events. The Biblical tradition is consistent with the Sumerian tradition regarding events from the pre-Old Babylonian Period (all the relevant persons and events belong to an ancient Sumerian tradition from the time before the end of the third millennium BC). </span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In fact, the Biblical tradition is consistent with a viable reconstruction of Sumerian history from the time before the deluge until after the Uruk Period (ca. sixth to early third millennia BC) – something that is not even found in Sumerian tradition where the ancient history of the land must be reconstructed from the textual sources and archaeological data. The obvious question is: <i>How did the Biblical author know to order those stories about the persons and events?</i> It does not make sense that the author wrote it down many centuries after these things happened. Rather, he merely recorded an ancient tradition handed down to him. I argue that we have good reasons to think that we have a true tradition before us which refers to real historical events.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[1] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/06/a-critique-of-biblical-criticism-as.html">A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[2] The Sumerian hypothesis stands primarily in opposition to the Babylonian hypothesis. For more details on the Sumerian hypothesis, read: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/09/the-book-of-genesis-sumerian-hypothesis.html" target="_blank">The Book of Genesis - the Sumerian hypothesis</a></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I also criticize the Documentary hypothesis as a prime example of bad hermeneutics. See</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/06/a-critique-of-biblical-criticism-as.html" target="_blank">A critique of Biblical Criticism as a scholarly discipline</a> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/04/part-1-can-we-still-believe-bible.html" target="_blank">Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective</a></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">I present a viable alternative to the Documentary Hypothesis:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/06/who-is-elohim.html" target="_blank">Who is Elohim?</a></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[3] There are also other unique characteristics of the ancient history that I discussed elsewhere such as the use of the divine “us” (see part 7 of this series; at the bottom of this essay).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[4] Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1939. <i>The Sumerian King List.</i> Chicago: University of Chicago. p141.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Michalowski, Piotr. 1983. History as Charter. Some Observations on the Sumerian King List. <i>Journal of the American Oriental Society</i> 103(1):237-248.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[5] I previously showed that the important events included in the story of Abraham are consistent with the wider ancient Middle Eastern chronology when the Mesopotamian “high” chronology is used together with K. A. Kitchen’s “low” chronology for the Twelfth Dynasty in Egypt.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/02/presenting-new-ancient-middle-eastern.html">Presenting a new ancient Middle Eastern chronology</a>.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[6] The name Chaldeans refers to the Neo-Babylonians from the time of the Babylonian exile.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[7] Some Sumerologists have proposed that the Biblical story of Cain and Abel may be related to the Sumerian disputation between Enkimdu and Dumuzi. In both cases, the dispute is between an antediluvian farmer and shepherd. In my view, the correspondence is not detailed enough to justify a shared tradition in the way that I am proposing.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[8] I previously argued that the Hebrew God was worshipped already in ancient Sumer, where he was called An by the Sumerians. The name An means “most high”, similar to the Hebrew El-Elyon (Most High God). In my view, the names El and An are like God (in English) and Dieu (in French). In both cases, this God was worshipped as the father of the gods. See part 7 of this series.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[9] The kings listed under the first dynasty of Kish actually includes three such lists, which mean that the last kings on the list were far removed in time from the first ones. The expression “XX became king”, which usually introduces a new dynasty in the Sumerian King List, is used three times in this dynasty of Kish. This implies that three different lists are combined within the framework of the list that mentions Etana. The first of these consists of a list of Akkadian names (the language of the eastern Semites), which may refer to the ancestors of the kings of Kish. The second list commences with Etana and would refer to the first dynasty of these kings. The third list commences with Enmebarragesi, who ruled towards the end of the Uruk period. In my reconstruction of events, the House of Uruk ruled during the Uruk period, which commences directly after the deluge. The only place where the first dynasty of Kish would fit in would, therefore, be before the deluge.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[10] Rohl, David. 1998. <i>Legend The Genesis of Civilization</i>. London: Century. p215.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[11] The reasons for taking the Sumerian Aratta as the Biblical Ararat would be discussed in the next part of the series.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[12] Vanstiphout, Herman. 2003. <i>Epics of Sumerian Kings. The Matter of Aratta.</i> Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. p67</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[13] Jacobsen 1939:73</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[14] Jacobsen 1939:60</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[15] Vanstiphout 2003:59, 85</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[16] Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1987. <i>The Harps that once… Sumerian Poetry in Translation</i>. New Haven: Yale University. p290.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[17] Crawford, Harriet. 1991. <i>Sumer and the Sumerians</i>. Cambridge: Cambridge University. p182.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Algaze, Guillermo. 1986. <i>The Uruk World System. The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization.</i> Chicago: University of Chicago. p16.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">[18] Leick, Gwendolyn. 2001. <i>Mesoptamia. The invention of the City</i>. New York: Penguin. p17, 18.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The author has written a book on the Sumerian roots of the Bible (<i>Abraham en sy God</i> (Griffel, 2012)) and is a scientist (PhD in Physics; MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Read also the other parts of the series on the Book of Genesis:<br />Intro: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/09/the-book-of-genesis-sumerian-hypothesis.html">The Book of Genesis - the Sumerian hypothesis</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Part 1: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2013/03/does-creation-narrative-of-genesis-1.html">Does the creation narrative of Genesis 1 support the idea of a young earth?</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Part 2: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2013/07/adam-and-eve-were-they-first-humans.html">Adam and Eve: Were they the first humans</a>?</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Part 3: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-garden-of-eden-was-it-real-place.html">The Garden of Eden: Was it a real place?</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Part 4: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-serpent-of-paradise.html">The Serpent of Paradise</a><br />Part 5: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2015/06/reconsidering-fall.html">Reconsidering the Fall</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Part 6: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/02/the-origins-of-satan-ancient-worldview.html">The ancient worldview: the origins of Satan</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Part 7: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/06/who-is-elohim.html">Who is Elohim?</a></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #444444;">Part 9:</span><span style="color: black;"> <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-great-flood-did-it-really-happen.html" target="_blank">The Great Flood: Did it really happen?</a></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #444444;">Part 10:</span> <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/03/abraham-holds-key.html" style="color: #666666;" target="_blank">Abraham holds the key</a><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">If readers find the article interesting, they are welcome to share it or forward it to others, including their pastors or other scholars. </span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-87955521258762685402017-03-01T01:49:00.001-08:002019-07-02T05:07:13.191-07:00In defense of the soul<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>In this essay, I argue that we have good reasons to think that the soul exists. I use the Kantian conception of the soul as a point of departure - and show how this may find its application in contemporary quantum physics. I discuss the Penrose-Hameroff theory of consciousness in which they understand the soul in terms of quantum information which may continue existing after death. This is the fifth part in the series </i>Science, Philosophy and God.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Long ago, there was a time when about everybody believed in the existence of the soul. Although the ancient peoples had various conceptions of the soul, they all believed that humans have souls which continue to exist after their death. In their view, the body governs our interaction with the material world and the soul governs our interaction with the spiritual world (spirit world). In our own time, the situation is very different. Whereas religious people, in general, believe in the existence of the soul, the non-religious does not.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">One may propose that the soul is the great divider between believers (not only of the Christian faith) and atheists. The reason is that atheists, in general, do not believe in the existence of the human soul (there may be black swans!). Although atheism is often presented only in terms of non-belief (not believing in God or gods), the soul is part of a metaphysical worldview which is typically associated with religious belief. In spite of this, one may think that at least some atheists would try to understand any data that may be consistent with the religious conception of the soul within their own conceptual framework. We are, however, not even close to this happening and the purpose of the present essay is to present a working concept of the soul and then to argue that this is not only consistent with science but also that we have - even at this early stage - good reasons to think that the soul most probably exists.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The main question is: What would science be looking for insofar as the soul is concerned? What would be a sensible way to think of the soul which would allow scientific scrutiny thereof? As before in this series, I use the Kantian conceptual structure as a point of departure. I show what the Kantian conception of the soul entails and also how that concept may find its empirical confirmation in science (although, as in the case of dark matter, I think that only indirect empirical confirmation would be possible). I then argue that our current scientific knowledge is more in line with the possible existence of the soul than in conflict with it.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>The Kantian conception of the soul</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Kant distinguishes between three concepts of the self, all of which are closely connected with his concept of the soul. These are the "self as appearance", the "logical self" and the "noumenal self". The first two concepts are part of Kant's epistemology (the study of knowledge claims) and the second of his moral philosophy. Even so, Kant discusses all of these in his critique of rational psychology in the second part of his famous <i>Critique of Pure Reason</i> which focuses on epistemology.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What does Kant mean by these concepts? By the "self as appearance" - also known as the "phenomenal self" - Kant means one's sense of oneself as one appears to oneself (in the inner sense). Kant argues that all efforts to arrive at some knowledge of the soul through an analysis of the way in which we appear to ourselves are doomed to fail since insofar as such appearances are used to formulate a concept of our "logical self" (a pure analytic concept), which is then used to say something about the existence of the soul, that it is a step taken too far. Logical concepts do not necessarily imply a corresponding kind of existence!</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">We cannot proceed from an analytic judgment (i.e. from a judgment regarding pure concepts) to one which involves existence (for which a synthetic judgment is needed) without showing how that would be possible in the framework of our senses. We may formulate logical concepts but their reference to really existing things can only be established when these concepts are complemented by empirical data given in the senses (and by extension, in experiment). Knowledge about the soul - as (transcendental [1]) ground for the phenomenal self - would only be possible if we can apply that concept to data given in our senses <i>in the framework of space/time</i>. This cannot happen with regard to the soul (I discuss the Kantian conception of knowledge in [2]).</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The second concept is that of the "logical self". In this case, Kant refers to the "I" as logical or formal conception <i>of the unity of consciousness</i>. This is that self-consciousness (also called apperception) which produces the thought (representation) "I think". The "I think" <i>must be able to</i> accompany all my thoughts - otherwise it would not be the identical I. The one identical I which can logically be conceptualized as the self which underlies all my thoughts, is the "logical self". Although we can form a clear concept of this self within the wider context of our human ability to obtain knowledge of objects, we cannot in any way gain knowledge about this self itself for the reasons given above.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The third Kantian concept under discussion is that of the "noumenal self" (which corresponds to the traditional concept of the soul). The distinction that Kant makes between the phenomenal and noumenal realms underlies the difference between the phenomenal and noumenal selves. Whereas we all have some <i>experience</i> of the phenomenal self, we can only <i>think</i> about the possible existence of the noumenal self (the word "noumenal" is derived from the Greek word "nous", meaning mind). What distinguishes the noumenal self from the "logical self", is that the concept of this self involves the idea of freedom (of choice) within the context of Kant's practical/moral philosophy (the logical self is also produced through an "act of spontaneity", but this is understood in the context of Kant's epistemology).</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In Kant's program, his epistemology and his moral philosophy stand very much apart. The first is discussed in the <i>Critique of Pure Reason</i> (the first <i>Critique</i>) and the second in his <i>Critique of Practical Reason</i> (the second <i>Critique</i>). Although Kant follows a transcendental approach (as he calls his philosophy [1]) to both, the points of departure and the way in which these are presented are very different. Whereas the "logical self" is the necessary <i>thought</i> of oneself as an identical self which may obtain "objective" [2] knowledge when certain epistemological conditions are in place, the "noumenal self" is the necessary <i>thought</i> of oneself as the agent of one's own actions in the framework of morality.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">According to Kant, there is a "gap" between our thinking about ourselves in the world of knowledge and science and our thinking about ourselves in the world of morality. This has led some interpreters to identify Kant's phenomenal and noumenal realms with the scientific and moral realms. One often finds that these are treated totally apart as if they do not impact on each other and theologians with a Kantian (or even German) philosophical background usually think in these terms. For them, Kant's famous words in the preface to the second edition of the first <i>Critique</i> where he says that he had to "remove" knowledge (from the noumenal realm) in order to make space for belief implies this. And this is true: for Kant, we have no sensible access to the noumenal realm and can therefore not say anything substantially about that in scientific terms.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So, the problem is the following: in Kant's epistemology the "logical self" does not necessitate the existence of the soul nor does his moral philosophy. There is no possible way to know whether the soul really exists. Kant writes: "[T]he conclusion is that in no way whatsoever can we cognize [gain knowledge of] anything about the constitution of our soul that in any way at all concerns the possibility of its separate existence" (B420). So, why is the soul important in Kant's metaphysics (which is not a dogmatic metaphysics)? The reason is that the noumenal self or soul allows us to introduce the concept of free choice in morality. Since the soul's existence would be in the noumenal realm outside nature where determinism (mechanism) rules, it is not contradictory to ascribe freedom (free action) to the soul.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The Kantian philosopher Udo Thiel states it nicely: "If I think of myself as a noumenon, I think of myself as existing independently of the conditions of our experience (space and time), and, consequently, I think of myself as not being affected by spatiotemporal determinations and in that sense as 'free' (B310)" [3]. So, even though we can never gain any knowledge of the soul in Kant's system, we can form a clear concept of the soul as existing outside the phenomenal realm and as such as governed by another principle, namely spontaneity (for Kant spontaneity underlies freedom to act [4]).</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Kant's relevance for today</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The problem for the Kantian position is that Kant acknowledges that we cannot gain any knowledge about the possible existence of the soul. Although we may form a coherent concept of the soul, as existing in the noumenal realm, we cannot "know" whether the soul really exists. For Kant, our human senses are just <i>not able to confirm or deny that</i>. In the view of atheists, this is a very comfortable position: arguing that the soul may exist but that we can never empirically establish its existence. For them, this comes close to a "God in the gap" position, even though Kant gave very good reasons for his position.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Although Kant acknowledged that there is a"gap" between the world of experience (science) and that of morality, he also presented a scientific philosophy in which this gap is closed. He did this in his <i>Critique of the Power of Judgement</i> (the third <i>Critique</i>). In this (final) <i>Critique</i> Kant introduced another approach, which actually lies at the basis of all our interaction with both nature and morality, namely that as humans (with our kind of constitution) we have no choice but to introduce certain regulative ideas (guiding ideas; hypotheses) which can never be confirmed or denied, but which regulate the conceptual framework through which we engage with the world. In science, for example, we need the regulative idea that the world is ordered even though this can never be proven empirically [2]. In fact, this is the basis of all science! For Kant, the soul is another such regulative idea (although this is not discussed in the third <i>Critique</i>). Kant also introduced the idea of reflective judgment, which is not determinative (providing final outcomes) but which serves merely as <i>an estimation</i> of what the world may be like [5]. This kind of judgment operates together with regulative concepts.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The third <i>Critique</i> provides the basis from which we may consider the issue of the existence of the human soul. In the spirit of this <i>Critique</i>, we may regard the existence of the soul as a working hypothesis in science. But how could we overcome the problem that all knowledge of the soul is ruled out in Kant's philosophical system? There is actually a way out. I have proposed that Kant's system may be reworked to bring it in line with contemporary scientific thought [6]. This may be done when we allow that time be combined not only with proper space as we find in the Kantian system but also with ideal (conceptual) space as we find in quantum physics, where time is coupled with Hilbert (abstract) space.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">When we introduce this change, we find that Kant's noumenal realm - called the supersensible realm in this <i>Critique</i> - is consistent with our current conception of the quantum realm (in both quantum mechanics and quantum field theory). This way of presenting the noumenal realm in the context of science is also in the spirit of the third <i>Critique</i>, where <i>Kant introduced the noumenal realm within the framework of his philosophy of science</i>. There he states quite unequivocal: "The power of judgment, through its a priori principle <i>of judging nature in accordance with possible particular laws for it</i>, provides for its supersensible substratum (in us as well as outside us) determinability [i.e. that it can determine outcomes as phenomena] through the intellectual faculty [i.e. we can think it]' (5:196)" (my accentuation).</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />I previously argued that Kant's noumenal realm is confirmed in quantum physics in the sense that his conceptualization thereof is in line with our theoretical (mathematical) and experimental understanding of the quantum realm [5]. Now we may recast the Kantian concept of the soul in such a quantum context. <i>The soul as noumenal self would be that part of humans which exists in the quantum realm, which allows us to make free choices and which continues to exist after our death. </i>This means that the soul is within the framework of scientific inquiry - something that Kant never thought would be possible. Although we may never be able to empirically demonstrate the existence of the soul (as Kant believed), we may be able to indirectly establish its existence in a similar way that we (indirectly) establish the existence of quantum particles even though they are not within experimental reach in their pre-measurement phase. </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"> <b>Searching for the soul</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"> Since the time of Kant science has established that the most important characteristic that Kant ascribes to the soul, namely spontaneity (at least in Bohr's reading), is indeed to be found in the context of the quantum realm (for a discussion, see [7]). One should remember that it was to account for freedom of choice (grounded in spontaneity), that Kant introduced the concept of the noumenal self in the first place. Although this in itself obviously does not necessarily mean that the soul exists, it is nonetheless significant that spontaneity exists in our world in line with Kant's suggestion - and also that it exists exactly in the quantum realm which corresponds with Kant's noumenal realm. </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"> What would scientists be looking for when they search for evidence of the soul? According to the Kantian conception of the soul, they would be searching for an integrated part of our human existence which lies beyond our material bodies in the quantum realm, but which are nonetheless closely interwoven with the body in the context of consciousness, for example. The soul would involve a coherent, permanent form of existence which goes beyond mere quantum particles - one may suggest some kind of quantum "body", i.e. a non-material body, which corresponds to the pre-measurement state of quantum entities in the sense that it is not an appearance in space-time. (The soul would include aspects that are beyond the current scientific understanding of quantum physics; it may even include aspects that go beyond quantum physics itself). For the soul to continue existing after death with some kind of conscious mind, this quantum body must be able to store information independently from the body. Although the soul would be outside the direct reach of our senses and instruments, it may be within the reach of indirect empirical confirmation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">The British scientist-philosopher Sir Roger Penrose, who is an emeritus professor at Oxford University, together with </span>Stuart Hameroff, emeritus professor at the University of Arizona, have developed a quantum theory of consciousness which they understand in terms of the soul. According to their <span style="font-family: inherit;">neurological theory, consciousness is explained </span>in terms of packets of information stored on the quantum level in microtubules in the brain [8]. In fact, we should not <span style="font-family: inherit;">only think of consciousness as a packet of information stored in quantum states in the brain but also that this information may survive death. </span>Regarding the soul, Hameroff said in the documentary <i>Through the Wormhole</i>, which was aired in 2012 on the Science Channel: "If the patient dies, it is possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as the soul" [9]. <span style="font-family: inherit;">Insofar as their theory ascribes the soul to the quantum level, their view is consistent with mine. </span><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img alt="Image result for penrose soul" height="225" src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3WXTX0IUaOg/maxresdefault.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Sir Roger Penrose</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In my view, the possible confirmation of the soul is something which lies in the distant future - although arguments for believing therein may soon become part of the current scientific debate. One may, for example, think that the soul exists in the framework of black matter - where theoretical scientists have proposed that humans have a body similar to our physical body existing of black matter [10]. As such this would be a quantum body, which is beyond direct empirical observation, but which nevertheless exists as part of our human existence. Although science cannot as yet determine whether this is indeed the case, there cannot be any doubt that scientific debate has changed dramatically over the last few years and that the existence of the soul as working hypothesis to explain things such as consciousness and freedom of choice (as a pillar of our justice system), makes good sense. </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />The existence of the soul would negate atheism. It would support the religious worldview. If confirmed, the current conflict between religious and atheistic narratives would probably be superseded by one in which the various religious narratives are closely scrutinized for their consistency with reality. This is where the ascription of spontaneity and freedom of choice to the soul is particularly important. In the Judaeo-Christian view, this is the basic requirement for the soul which allows humans to live up to the God-given moral law [11]. If we do not have free choice, this requirement is nonsensical. If the soul is indeed found to exist in the quantum realm where spontaneity rules, it would serve as a major confirmation of the Judaeo-Christian worldview. Then the quest would be to show how the soul interacts with the body to allow for free choice [12]. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;">One may, in fact, argue that since spontaneity has been confirmed in the context of the quantum realm (insofar as that is possible, see [7]), that we have good reason to think that humans have freedom of choice (it is consistent evidence since the first is a necessary requirement for the second). But for humans to have freedom of choice, they would need a very complicated quantum aspect operating in the context of the human body which allows for such choice to become possible. Such a quantum aspect is consistent with our conception of the human soul - especially when viewed in terms of Kant's noumenal self. This means that we have good reasons to think that humans have souls (the opposing view which rejects the possibility of the soul based on the metaphysical view that the universe is deterministic, has become untenable.)</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
<b>Conclusion</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />Although we cannot as yet confirm or deny the existence of the human soul, the total rejection of this idea which characterized modernist times is long gone. We may proceed within the context of Kant's third <i>Critique</i> to present the noumenal self or soul (and even the logical self insofar as consciousness is concerned) as a sensible hypothesis which may govern a coherent scientific project. Science has already established that spontaneity is part of our world on the quantum level in accordance with Kant's proposal in this regard. It may soon establish that coherent "quantum bodies" exist and eventually that such a body (presumably a very complex one) is an integral part of our human existence.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />The modernist man took a very superior position with regard to the ancients. The soul was one of the things - together with God - that they rejected as untenable. Now, everything has changed. If (when?) science establishes that such a quantum body underlies our physical body, the acknowledgement that science only presents us with a very reductive view of our world would be dramatically exhibited. In fact, since spontaneity would be an integrated part of such a quantum body (since it belongs to the quantum realm!), the case for God as the giver of the moral law (for which freedom of choice is necessary) would become very strong indeed. Readers should ask themselves whether they would bet their eternal happiness on science not finding evidence for the soul over the next one hundred years? If the soul exists, life after death does - and from the Judaeo-Christian standpoint, one has much to gain from belief in God [13].</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[1] Kant calls his philosophy "transcendental idealism". By "transcendental" Kant means that his idealism is concerned with the possibility of and conditions for (objective) experience, and as such with <i>a priori</i> cognition.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[2] See part 2 of this series</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[3] Thiel, U. 2010. The Critique of Rational Psychology. In Graham Bird (ed.) <i>A Companion to Kant. </i>Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">[4] Kant writes: "</span><i>It is especially noteworthy that it is this transcendental idea of freedom [i.e. absolute spontaneity] on which the practical concept of freedom is grounded</i>, and the former constitutes the real moment of the difficulties of the latter, which have long surrounded the question of its possibility" (A534/B562, B461-2; my accentuation).</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[5] I simplify the Kantian conceptions such that lay readers would find them easier to understand.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[6] See part 3 of this series</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[7] See part 1 of this series</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[8] </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Stuart Hameroff summarizes the Penrose-Hameroff theory in an academic article in <i>Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience</i>: "</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , "stixgeneral" , serif; font-size: 15.9991px;">The Penrose–Hameroff theory of 'orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR)' identifies discrete conscious moments with quantum computations in microtubules inside brain neurons, e.g., 40/s in concert with gamma synchrony EEG. Microtubules organize neuronal interiors and regulate synapses. In Orch OR, microtubule quantum computations occur in integration phases in dendrites and cell bodies of integrate-and-fire brain neurons connected and synchronized by gap junctions, allowing entanglement of microtubules among many neurons. Quantum computations in entangled microtubules terminate by Penrose 'objective reduction (OR),' a proposal for quantum state reduction and conscious moments linked to fundamental spacetime geometry. Each OR reduction selects microtubule states which can trigger axonal firings and control behavior. The quantum computations are 'orchestrated' by synaptic inputs and memory (thus 'Orch OR')." (in Front Integr Neurosci, Vol 6, 2012. See </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "stixgeneral" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 15.9991px;">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3470100/</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "stixgeneral" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 15.9991px;">[9] </span></span>https://youtu.be/3WXTX0IUaOg</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[10] See, for example, http://www.space.com/21508-dark-matter-atoms-disks.html</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[11] Some moral philosophers and theologians may argue that equating the soul with a quantum body as part of our human existence, would lead to the infringement of science on the moral terrain. Although my approach does away with the strict divide between the scientific and moral realms typical of Kantian (and German) thinking, it does not undermine the validity of our moral existence. In my view, we should not ground morality on the Kantian divide between the realms of science and morality, but rather on the divide between humans and animals. Although one may argue that human morality got some of its features from animal behaviour (as some atheists do), it is exactly our human dignity (menswaardigheid) which grounds human morality. And this is the very essence of Christianity - we have value because God loves us in a special way.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[12] In the above-mentioned article [8] Hameroff argues that free will may be accounted for on the quantum level insofar as "conscious free will" is concerned. He writes " </span><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , "stixgeneral" , serif;"><span style="font-size: 15.9991px;">Regarding consciousness occurring 'too late,' quantum state reductions seem to involve temporal non-locality, able to refer quantum information both forward and backward in what we perceive as time, enabling real-time conscious causal action. Quantum brain biology and Orch OR can thus rescue free will." Although the spontaneity observed in quantum physics is harnessed to explain free will as I propose, there cannot be any doubt that we are still far from a full understanding of free will. In my view, one would require a much more complex quantum structure in line with my idea of a "quantum body" to explain that.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[13] Although my view comes close to identifying the quantum realm with the spirit world (spiritual world; see part 4 of this series), I do not, in fact, equate them. Rather, I argue that the quantum realm is not only consistent with our basic conceptualization of the spirit world (as the noumenal world) but is also our first level of contact with that world in the context of science. As such the soul as a quantum body does not mean that the soul is <i>only</i> a quantum body. No, it may include aspects that go even beyond the quantum realm.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Nonetheless, the identification of the soul/spirit (we may distinguish the soul and the spirit but cannot separate these from each other - it is the spirit that gives the human soul its eternal dimension) with a quantum entity opens the question regarding the Spirit of God. Does He also belong to the quantum realm? One may propose that in the same way that Jesus Christ is the incarnation of God in the flesh, that His Spirit realizes His presence in the spirit realm - which in the context of our present discussion implies that He operates in some way within the quantum realm. One of the features of the quantum realm is that entities are connected non-locally - which on some level may imply being present everywhere.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">One may argue that insofar as God exists outside of his creation, He even stands outside the spirit realm - that is, if we view it as part of God's creation (it involves spiritual entities as created beings). This would mean that when we read that "God is spirit" (Joh. 4:24), it merely means that God manifests Himself as Spirit and that this is the way in which we as humans have communion with Him. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Dialoger</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The author is a scientist-philosopher (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, and science.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science, Philosophy, and God. Part 1: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/11/the-problem-of-spontaneity-in-quantum.html">The problem of spontaneity in quantum mechanics</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science, Philosophy, and God. Part 2: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/03/science-and-our-restricted-human.html">Science and our restricted human understanding</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science, Philosophy, and God. Part 3: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/science-and-metaphysics-in-search-of.html">Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> A new argument for the existence of God</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science, Philosophy, and God. Part 4. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/11/science-and-spiritual-realm.html">Science and the spiritual realm</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science, Philosophy, and God. Part 6: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/06/science-and-atheism.html" target="_blank">Science and Atheism</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science, Philosophy, and God. Part 7: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-rapture-different-views.html" target="_blank">Science and spiritual intuition</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
Science, Philosophy, and God. Part 8: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-christian-and-evolution.html" target="_blank">The Christian and Evolution</a> </div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-27987162266865633042017-01-10T04:37:00.002-08:002019-08-01T06:24:30.447-07:00Towards a dialogistic approach<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>In this essay, I present proposals for a new missional approach to complement the traditional field of apologetics. Insofar as the church wants to reach out to atheists, agnostics and non-religious people, I suggest that a dialogistic approach is developed.</i></span></div>
<div lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Over the past five years, I wrote various essays about the challenge of reaching the people of our day and age with the gospel – especially the growing number who describe themselves as atheistic, agnostic or non-religious [1-7]. I have not only discussed the severity of the situation in the Western world [7] but have also developed proposals as to what the church should do. In this essay, I present the outlines for a new approach that I believe would be much more successful than the traditional ones. I call it the "dialogistic" approach.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I previously discussed the current approaches to reaching non-believers with the gospel [7]. Although all such approaches may be called "missional" in the widest sense of the word, they vary insofar as they are directed at different groups of people. One may distinguish 1) the traditional <i>missionary approaches</i> in which the gospel is taken to people who live in communities beyond the so-called "Christian world", 2) the traditional <i>evangelistic approaches</i> in which the gospel is presented to people who share a Christian worldview, but who do not have a personal relationship with Christ, 3) <i>missional approaches</i> in which the gospel is taken to the fast-growing number of people who belongs to a culturally distinct, postmodern society. Each of these approaches uses different tools that are applicable to their particular challenges.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What about the growing group of atheists, agnostics and non-religious people? Although they might belong to the mentioned postmodern society, they form a distinct group for which the other kinds of tools do not seem to work. They are well-informed and have developed a particularly anti-Christian mindset. Although there are many people in the marketplace of ideas who at this stage reserve judgment, it seems that many are joining their ranks since they find their narrative more convincing than the Christian one.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Historically the church has used "apologetic tools" in this context but these are developed for defending the gospel, not reaching people with it. In fact, in our time the traditional "proofs" of God's existence have lost its power since they have been effectively challenged [8]. We know today that our world is much more complex than originally thought and even in science the idea of "proof" is generally discarded insofar as questions regarding "reality" are concerned [8]. In the place of "proofs," we have conflicting narratives – and the only way that these people can be swayed (from a human perspective) is if they can be convinced that the Christian narrative (including its worldview) is credible. This requires not only a repackaging of the Christian narrative using good Biblical hermeneutics but also the skill to engage in dialogue with such people.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Towards a dialogistic approach</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Although the traditional apologetic approaches may have their value, in my view the church needs a fresh approach if she wants to effectively reach these people. The best place to start in our search for an effective approach is in the example set by the apostle Paul, who was not only sent to the heathen in general but who also engaged with the non-Christian intellectual community of his day.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">We read about the approach that St. Paul used in Athens in Acts 17:17: "Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him". The apostle conversed not only in the synagogues but also on the marketplace. When we want to rework his approach in contemporary terms, one may suggest that synagogues be replaced by churches and all kinds of outreaches that take place within that context. The marketplace finds its contemporary equivalent in the marketplace of ideas, which include both physical conversations in public areas as well as discussions on social media. In my view, the internet has become the most important forum for dialogue in this regard.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What did St. Paul do on the marketplace? He is said to have “disputed’ daily with those that he met there. Now, the Greek word used here is "dialogomai". At heart, this word involves conversation, which corresponds with our word “dialogue”. St. Paul was able to present the gospel in a relevant way in the context of the kind of discussions that people have on such marketplaces. We gain some insight from what he said during his marketplace conversations when we consider his address to the philosophers on the Areopagus.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">St. Paul did not preach the gospel in the traditional way! No, he engaged with their religious and philosophical views on various levels. In making an intellectual argument for the Creator God who sent Jesus Christ as the Messiah, he took their religious practice as the point of departure, mentioning an altar that he saw in Athens that was dedicated to the unknown god. He also referred to one of their poets, whom he quoted. <i>St. Paul’s approach was all but traditional</i>: he packaged the gospel in a relevant way and he engaged with conversation, both on the marketplace and when given the opportunity to speak to a gathering of philosophers.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Of special interest is his engagement with their way of thinking. St. Paul did not participate in a debate in which each side stands as <i>opposites to each other</i>. He engaged in dialogue – which means that both sides <i>meet each other</i> in conversation. As such he really tried to understand their perspective and seems to have had a good knowledge of their way of thinking. <i>If we are</i> <i>not really interested in people, in their views and carefully listen to them, it is difficult to see why they should listen to us. </i>“Meeting” on the marketplace is at the same time a meeting of minds – similar to the Platonic dialogues. In fact, St. Paul’s approach is much more in the Greek tradition of dialogue than in the later Christian tradition of preaching!</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">My suggestion is that we take this Pauline approach as the basis to develop a missional field called “dialogics”. The person who engages in such an approach would be a “dialoguer” or “dialoger” - the equivalent of other similar names such as theologian or apologist. In Afrikaans one may call such a person a “dialogikus” from the Greek "dialogikos" or Latyn “dialogicus”. Such persons would follow a dialogistic approach to reaching people. I will now give a broad outline of what I have in mind.</span></div>
<center>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width: 322px;">
<colgroup><col width="322"></col> </colgroup><tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border: none; padding: 0cm;" width="322"><div lang="zxx">
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: none; padding: 0cm;" width="322"><div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img alt="Image result for market place ancient" src="http://www.ambient-mixer.com/images_template/1/3/f/13fb7de8af6faa44e5bc9e3847aa27d4_full.jpg" height="227" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="320" /></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 12.8px;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Ancient marketplace</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</center>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>A dialoger</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Traditionally the church had not been good at dialogue. Although this is a primary requirement for the kind of discussion that is necessary in our times, <i>the church has not effectively trained ministers in this skill nor educated them in the disciplines necessary for successful dialogue</i>. Although ministerial training is focused on Biblical studies, for the most part, it does not involve sufficient education in those philosophical (hermeneutical) tools that enable sophisticated readings of the text nor the development of sophisticated Christian narratives and arguments. </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Ministers have traditionally been trained in oratorical skills in line with ancient Stoic norms, not in dialogical skills. They are usually dogmatic and not very interested in the opinions of those outside their particular Christian community. Insofar as they are educated in a Biblical Criticism context, they often live under the illusion that their field should be operated as a “science", whereas it can never be more than a hermeneutical discipline [9]. Traditionally in science scholars tried to formulate "truths" about reality (although this ideal has been shipwrecked in the context of quantum physics [8]), whereas in hermeneutics one engage with texts (and even life itself) in dialogic terms. The outcome is not good: <i>I do not know of many churches where open discussion and dialogue are allowed during services!</i></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Again, we may take St. Paul as an example. Insofar as St.Paul’s education is concerned, he was well-trained to converse within the context of the Greek culture which dominated within the Roman world. His studies with Gamaliel seem to have included philosophy since he quotes such a poet not only in his speech on the Areopagus but also elsewhere (Titus 1:12). When St. Paul became an apostle, he did not cast his education behind him; rather, this was what made him such a remarkable apostle. Both his dedication to the Lord and his training contributed to him being able to break through the Jewish-heathen barrier of his time. We can learn from him insofar as we are confronted with a similar barrier.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What is necessary to be a dialoger who is able to effectively engage with atheistic, agnostic and non-religious persons? I would suggest three things: 1) a practical walk with the Lord, 2) a broad-based education within a dialogical framework and 3) creating “spaces” where such dialogue can take place. Insofar as the first is concerned, I believe that we are in need of people who are not merely serving the Lord, but who are fully surrendered to Him [4]. Where are the Christian leaders who do not run for their own spiritual house (denomination, church) and always consider what they might gain, but for whom the House of the Lord (the church in general) is a central concern (Hag. 1:4, 9)? A dialoger’s ministry should be widely accepted within the Christian community – even though some traditional Christians would obviously not easily accept change.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Insofar as education is concerned, I would suggest that in our contemporary circumstances a dialoger needs to be able to excel in two dimensions, namely in presenting a sophisticated Christian narrative and to engage in constructive dialogue. Both these skills are of cardinal importance. <i>If the Christian narrative that we present are not well-informed and consistent with good hermeneutical principles as well as science, informed people would not take it seriously.</i> If we are not able to present our narrative to others within the framework of successful dialogue that may take place in a wide spectrum of creative spaces, we will not be able to bring such people to Christ.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What is necessary to develop well-informed narratives? In my view, a broad-based education in especially four fields of study is needed, namely Biblical studies, philosophy, science (empirical sciences) and ancient Middle Eastern studies. As such, students would engage not only with the Biblical text but also with the basic tools of good hermeneutics and dialogue, with current scientific thinking and with the world from which the Bible originated (on a much more substantial level than is the case in current Biblical studies). I cannot see how one can formulate a well-informed and sophisticated Christian narrative if you do not have a good knowledge of all these fields. This is one important reason why we are unsuccessful – <i>our traditional narratives are for the most part not convincing enough!</i> The problem is not with the Biblical text, but with our packaging of the Biblical story.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Establishing a dialogistic school</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In fact, I believe we need some kind of dialogistic school where Christians are formally trained in all these disciplines (not another version of the typical Christian university). Such an education should not only include a basic education in these fields, but also inter-disciplinary coursework allowing such students to develop a wider perspective on life (so often academic education is extremely one-dimensional!). As such Christians would be able to argue for the reliability of the Biblical text (and worldview) within a multi-disciplinary context and would not be stuck with unconvincing literary tools such as "metaphor" to overcome contemporary challenges (a typical tool used by those trained within a Biblical Criticism context).</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">A dialogistic school should focus on the challenges of the time. As such it should challenge students to think creatively within a safe thinking environment (and not merely to accept the traditional Christian narratives, some of which are not based on good hermeneutics!). Insofar as such a school creates the space for the fusion of bright Christian minds, various challenges should be attended to. One is to develop new approaches to church life itself – most people who are brought up in postmodern society find it extremely difficult to adapt to traditional church life. Closely related to this issue is the effective usage of the internet and all social media to create spaces for effective dialogue.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Another challenge is to explore good hermeneutical philosophy – the challenge is to develop a-modernist approaches between the usual modernist and postmodernist ones. <i>Such a well-balanced philosophical framework should guide all academic studies in all disciplines at such a school.</i> Also important is the development of sophisticated Christian narratives (and formulations of the Christian worldview) that are consistent with both good hermeneutical practice and science. God’s revelation in his Word would not be in conflict with his revelation in nature! I have previously given some guidelines regarding some of these issues [6,7].</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">There is much to be said for educating Christian students in all disciplines in the framework of such an approach. This would enable them to make sense of their own Christian views within the challenges of our time; it would also enable them to engage more effectively in dialogue on the marketplace of ideas. Not everybody needs to become a dialoger – but all may acquire the basic sets of skills for good dialogue.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Such a school should educate students to the highest possible level. Students who proceed with study would be able to do doctorate and masters degrees in various fields. The true requirement for a dialoger is to be a master of various field of study, especially the four fields mentioned. This does not mean that such a person should be formally educated in all these fields to the highest levels (maybe in two or more), but that they should have an exceptional knowledge in all those fields.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Although the calling of a dialoger is primarily directed to reaching atheists, agnostics and non-religious people within contemporary society, it is immediately clear that such an education would provide students with a wide variety of skills which does not necessarily involve such a ministry. <i>In fact, these are the basic skills that would enable Christians to effectively engage with others in any particular discipline in which they may become qualified.</i></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">One might hope that professionals with such an education would be able to play an important role in society to promote a Christian way of life. Alumnae may form a network of Christians who do not only support each other insofar as inter-disciplinary work is concerned but even to deepen the level of networking with the church herself. If would be a wonderful day when non-pastoral ministries would become fully integrated into church life within the context of a wider Christian community.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the final instance, being a dialoger is not to have a particular academic qualification. Rather, I would suggest that dialogers should be appointed by other dialogers who have established themselves as such. Here I think along the lines of the ancient schools where philosophers and rabbi’s were so appointed. One may also remember the appointment of the apostles by Jesus. Although the apostles did not appoint other apostles (except in Acts 1), the apostolic ministry always formed an important part of the church's equipment for service - even to this day (Eph. 4:11). The best contemporary example is probably that of appointing life coaches.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In this short essay I propose that a new missional field called dialogics be developed which is directed to reaching atheists, agnostics and non-religious people with the gospel. In my view, the field of apologetics is not suitable for this task. Although traditional apologetics has its place in the wider spectrum of Christian engagement with non-believers, it has severe limits and is not effectively equipped to reach non-believers in this post-modernist age. The "proofs" with which apologists concern themselves had been successfully challenged by philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Frederick Nietzsche. It is nowadays not a matter of "proofs" but of good, sensible arguments and narratives - narratives that are both consistent with experienced reality and have rational, emotional and spiritual appeal (we are not merely spiritual beings). Although some apologists have tried to incorporate some of these aspects into their approach, I believe that a totally new specialized field is asked for.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I believe there is an enormous under-developed space in our missional approach, namely one which is centred on dialogue. Such a field would take its clues from the apostle Paul's engagement with the people of Athens. In my view (leaders in) the Christian community should be retrained (!) to move from the modernist mindset that many still cling to and become sophisticated participants in the conversations of our time. For this, we need sophisticated Christian narratives (and convincing presentations of our worldview) as well as dialogistic skills. Establishing dialogistic schools may make such an ideal become reality. </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[1] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/07/die-kerk-is-by-n-kruispad-n-ope-brief.html">Die kerk is by 'n kruispad: 'n ope brief aan die kerk</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[2] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/01/middelgrond-in-die-geloof.html">Middelgrond in die geloof</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[3] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/01/wat-moet-christene-in-n-tyd-soos.html">Wat moet Christene in 'n tyd soos hierdie doen?</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[4] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/04/a-message-for-church.html">A message for the church</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[5] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/02/hoe-moet-christene-die-huidige.html">Hoe moet Christene die huidige paradigma-verskuiwing in die samelewing benader?</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[6] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/09/the-book-of-genesis-sumerian-hypothesis.html">The Book of Genesis - the Sumerian hypothesis</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[7] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/12/engaging-with-atheists-and-agnostics.html">Engaging with atheists and agnostics</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[8] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/science-and-metaphysics-in-search-of.html">Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">[9] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/04/part-1-can-we-still-believe-bible.html">Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical approach</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The author is a scientist-philosopher (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy and science. He also wrote a book on the Sumerian roots of early Biblical tradition - <i>Abraham en sy God</i> (Griffel, 2012).</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-35478340908591615912016-12-06T00:27:00.000-08:002018-07-05T03:24:23.634-07:00Something or Someone is missing?<div align="center" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; text-align: start;"><i>Do you long for real revival in your heart, community and our land? Today we are facing a period of moral and spiritual decline that is perhaps more widespread than ever in our history. In spite of all our efforts, programs and methods we seem to be drifting farther and father away and the darkness getting darker and darker. As a nation we desperately need revival - a touch from heaven, a fresh encounter from God that will change our lives, behaviors, ethics, norms and even the structures of our society. God has an answer for us. He has revealed Himself and worked in the past in times of darkness. He can do it again. In fact, He is ready to help but He is waiting on a people that will return with their whole hearts to His agenda and purposes. It is time for us to stop, reflect and re-connect with the One that can change it all. Will you be such a person? (Essay by Dr. Francois Carr). </i></span></span></span></div>
</div>
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> “<span lang="en-US">I am profoundly convinced that the greatest need in the world today is revival in the Church of God.” – Dr. D.M. Lloyd-Jones [1]</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> “<span lang="en-US">Is God gone too? I began to seek God, but couldn’t find him.” Jim Bakker spoke these words as he pondered about the time he had spent in prison. Jim and his wife, Tammy Faye started the Praise The Lord Club in 1967. It became one of the most televised ministries of its time. They added Heritage USA, a Christian theme park. They saw prosperity as a gift from God. Everything around them seemed to be blessed, until a series of scandals surfaced in 1987. Jim was caught funneling money and paying a $265,000 bribe to his church secretary to cover up their adulterous relationship. Newspaper reporters began to investigate them and discover financial wrongdoings. They discovered that more than $158 million of the ministry's funds were spent on themselves. Jim admitted to spending money on luxury cars and six mansions. He had forty-seven bank accounts in his name. They have wasted money on all kinds of luxuries, this even included $60,000 in gold-plated bathroom fixtures.</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">He was convicted of fraud and sentenced to forty-five years in prison and given a $500,000 fine. He served almost five years before he had been paroled for good behavior. God used that time to draw Jim back to Himself because He meant it for his good. Looking back on his time in prison, Jim Bakker said:</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> “<span lang="en-US"><i>The first months of prison were devastating. After being in public ministry for every day of your life and then finding yourself with everything gone – not only the material things, but friends and reputation – facing forty-years, you wonder, Is God gone too? I began to seek God, but I couldn’t find him</i></span><span lang="en-US">.” [2]</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Where is God?</span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">The words of Jim Bakker reminded me of a question which was asked by Gideon, one of Israel’s Judges, in the Old Testament when Israel faced many trails, transitions and persecutions? He asked, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>“O my Lord, if the Lord is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all His miracles, which our fathers told us about, saying, ‘Did not the Lord bring us out of Egypt?’ But now the Lord has forsaken us and delivered us into the hand of the Midianites.”</i></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><i><br /></i></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The children of Israel`s way of living was evil in the sight of the Lord (Judges 6:1-10). So God delivered them in the hands of Midian and the Amalekites and the children of the East who bordered Israel. He allowed the Midianites to raid Israel for seven years. The annual raid took place around harvest time, destroying their crops, stealing the livestock and ravaging the land, leaving people living in fear, caves and in deep poverty. If you can imagine and picture the scenario, you’ll have some idea about the uncertainty and suffering Israel experienced. They were gravely impoverished. The crops and harvest were gone. Their desperately needed provisions were gone. They too might have wondered if God was gone? Being weary of hiding and struggling they cried out to their God.</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">An unexpected visit brings insight</span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">Gideon did not doubt the existence of God. Maybe his family read the Law of Moses or talked about the miracles of God by the hands of Deborah and Barak (Judges 4-5) or days gone by? Maybe he was thinking about the message of the prophet (Judges 6:8) sent by God? However, he struggled with the fact that God had worked mightily on behalf of Israel in the past but not at that time in history. Seven years of suffering had gone past and it seems not to be ending. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">God met with Gideon</span> <span lang="en-US">around about the eighth Midianite invasion. At the time he was a farmer and descended from the tribe of Manasseh. The Angel of the Lord came and sat under the terebinth tree which was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, while his son was busy threshing wheat in the winepress, in order to hide it from the Midianites. The Angel of the Lord appeared to him, and said to him, “</span><span lang="en-US"><i>The Lord is with you, you mighty man of valor!” </i></span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><i><br /></i></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">When we first met him, he was hiding – attempting to covertly thresh wheat in a winepress (Judges 6:11). The process of beating out grain and separating it from the chaff normally took place out in the open, on a hilltop where the breeze would blow the chaff away. He took cover in the shelter of a winepress. This was not the ideal place for winnowing wheat and maybe he thought it would go undetected. No doubt Gideon was startled by the fact that his hiding place was discovered. But we can sympathize with him. He was afraid. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">Gideon struggled with faith and was a bit of a coward. However, he is a great encouragement for people that have a hard time believing that God can make anything out of them or do anything with them or change their current circumstances. The Lord can and wants to show himself strong (2 Chronicles 16:9). He is just waiting for someone to really believe in Him, trust Him enough to adjust their lives and follow Him. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><b>He encountered a truth </b></span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><b><br /></b></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">Gideon was reminded about God’s power and presence in days gone by when He led the people out of Egypt into the Promised Land. He reasoned about their circumstances and what was happening and the problems and hardships they face and experienced, wondering where the power and presence of God had gone. This caused within him a crisis of faith, struggling with doubt and fear as he was trying to understand and making sense of it all. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I can imagine the questions that must have crossed his mind: Does God really cares? Does God know what He’s doing? Will God take care of us? Will God keep His promises? Why are we living in poverty, fear and hiding in caves? If God is with us, where is He? Is He gone? Does He even exist?</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">One would think that God would give him a well-thought-out plan of action, some war strategies, resources and lots of encouragement when He answered him. That did not happen. He simply said to Gideon: </span><span lang="en-US"><i>“Surely I will be with you, and you will defeat the Midianites as one man” (Judges 6:16, NKJV)</i></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><i><br /></i></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">When the Lord spoke, he addressed the real issue affecting Gideon’s faith and that of the nation. God was still at work but Gideon could not see or hear Him speak or understand His message, and experience His care and provision. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">God still speaks</span></b></span></div>
<div align="center" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">Firstly, God was speaking through the Midianites, Amalekites and people from the East (Judges 6: 3). God allowed the trials and hardships to take place because of their sin and disobedience. He wanted to get their attention and lead them to repentance and have them return to Him. His desire was to restore them. He wanted to be their God and live among them and bless them. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">God is still present</span></b></span></div>
<div align="center" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">Secondly, God was still with him and with the nation. The Angel of the Lord confirmed this when He said: “</span><span lang="en-US"><i>The Lord is with you</i></span><span lang="en-US">” and ‘</span><span lang="en-US"><i>surely I will be with you</i></span><span lang="en-US">’. He could not see or experience the fact of God`s presence and closeness. His view and outlook on life was blurred by his circumstances and that which was happening around him. It is a reality that also affects us today, that God is present amidst the hardships and uses that to draw us to Himself. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="center" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">God still cares</span></b></span></div>
<div align="center" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">Thirdly, the people of Israel cried out to God. God still cares and His desire was to help them. He wanted to bring them back to Himself and reveal His glory to the nations. God appeared and revealed Himself to Gideon and invited him to join Him on His mission. God`s desire was to work in and through him, but he had to believe, adjust his life and accept His invitation (Judges 6:11-14). </span> </span></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Some similarities today</span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">We can draw some conclusions from Gideon`s conduct and experience which are applicable even today as there are some clear similarities with the people of Israel and life as we now it today. In reality the times we live in are some of the most demanding and challenging we’ve ever known. People worldwide are facing difficult trials, conflicts, persecution and transitions which are affecting all aspects of their lives. Countries and nations war against each other, groups of people raid towns and villages, killing one another for more power, land and money. Riots, unrest, widespread violence and conflicts are reported daily on the news media. We see millions of refugees relocating to other countries searching and looking for safety and a better life and future. People of all cultures and backgrounds are living in poverty, uncertainty and in fear. The political and economic crisis worldwide continues to affect all of us as governments and leaders have no solution to bring about peace, stability, growth and prosperity. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">Businesses are closing down, while debt and unemployment continues to escalate. Life has become a daily struggle for many. Survival, paying the bills and put food on the table are part of this daily struggle. It was clearly visible on my recent trip to the Middle East, noticing the number of hotels closing down and unemployment and poverty increasing due to a drop of eighty percent of tourism. Ron Blue in his book, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Surviving Financial Meltdown</i></span><span lang="en-US"> explains that the rising cost of living, the economic turn down, job insecurities, growing debt, losing of homes while many have no savings for when they grow old is the cause of fear in the hearts of many [3]. We are truly living in uncertain, unsettling and difficult times leaving many of us with the same burning questions as Jim Bakker and Gideon. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> Where is God? Does He still exist? Why is this happening? Will it ever stop?</span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> Does He really cares? Is there any hope?</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The lesson is clear. When we stop seeking God and His heart the lit comes off and the blessing stops until we stop and pay attention to what we experience (Haggai 1).</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<br /></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Dilemma in the World</span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">We continue to see a great moral, ethical, and spiritual decline that permeates our nations, culture and communities. Political and corporate scandals and corruption are common at all levels of society and leadership. Sexual promiscuity, pornography, abortions, outbreak of diseases, crime, violence and global terrorism plague the nations and world. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">As a result, the world plunges deeper and deeper into darkness. We see thousands of people, aimlessly drifting and debasing themselves and human dignity in public and in private. A spirit of lawlessness and spiritual apathy hangs like a fog over our land and the world. People are doing what seems to be right in their own eyes (Judges 2). Richard Dortch, senior vice-president of PTL who was also convicted and sent to prison with Jim Bakker later said: “Pride, arrogance, and secrets led to the scandal.” He also said they did not plan the scandal; instead it was the natural result of living for oneself rather than for God [4].</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">We are beginning to see the disintegration of foundational social institutions, culture and history. Unless something positive happens, which will transform our lives and redirect our course of life, civilization, as we know it, is sure to change even further for the negative. Dr. Henry Blackaby, author of </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Fresh Encounter</i></span><span lang="en-US">, wrote:</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> “<span lang="en-US"><i>We seem to be drifting farther and farther away from God and His standards. The darkness around us seems to be getting darker and darker, but the problem is not with the darkness because the nature of darkness is evil. The problem is the lack of light, because when light shines it dispels the darkness</i></span><span lang="en-US">” [5].</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><b>The Dilemma of the Church </b></span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">Many communities and cultures are not Christian or even religious anymore and in many instances even hostile towards anything spiritual. The sacredness of marriage, family, home and Church is forgotten. Great numbers of people start to doubt God and His existence, and coldness towards God and the Church are clearly growing. There seems to be a new way of thinking and a drifting away from God. People have become more critical towards religion. New schools of thought and a new kind of spirituality have developed. According to John Dickerson in his book, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>The Great Evangelical Recession</i></span><span lang="en-US"> only 1 out of 10 people is Christian and in the next thirty years it will be 1 out of every 25 people [6]. We are on a downward spiral and this tendency is just continuing getting worse and out of control. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><b>The Dilemma in the Church </b></span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">Church membership is declining in the Western world. Most churches are shrinking and pastors are leaving the pastorate. Churches close their doors weekly. Instead of seeing Churches growing, establishing and equipping believers and evangelizing the lost they have become a weak minority. The Church has become powerless with little or no impact. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">Many of them have fallen into the lure of novelties, marketing and teaching a doctrine without power, while others pursue the one church health program to the next. Calendars and schedules are filled with events and programs, the latest fads and quick fixes, chasing the ABC’s (Attendance, budgets and cash) of a successful church. Instead of finding change, transformation and reality they find themselves going through the motions of religious activities with little of no impact in our communities and cultures. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Jim Cymbala, pastor of Brooklyn Tabernacle says:</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> “<span lang="en-US"><i>Nothing can defeat the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit</i></span><span lang="en-US">.” But, a powerful storm is surging against the Church, threatening its health. Yet most is asleep or unaware of the problems within itself that is warning signs. He said we are not as big as we think we are, Biblical literacy is declining and personal transformation has become rare [7].</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Dilemma of Christians</span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">People have become stress out, tired, overcommitted and overloaded. There seems to be no time or energy left for God and Church. Many have become mere spiritual spectators and losing interest. I believe the reason for that is because we are not well rooted in our faith and in Jesus Christ. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">First, instead of cultivating an intimate personal relationship with God we replace Him with programs, and exercising religious activities. According to Dr Andrew Murray, all believers run a risk in their devotional life and walk with God "</span><span lang="en-US"><i>of substituting prayer and Bible reading for living fellowship with God, the living interchange of giving Him your love, your heart, and your life and receiving from Him His love, His life and His Spirit" </i>[</span><span lang="en-US">9].</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">Furthermore, the lost sense of God’s presence and power in a believer’s life, church life, meetings, and in the general, a loss of the manifest awareness of God`s presence in our communion with Him is also a major factor and reason why many are struggling with unbelief, unconfessed sin, careless living and worldliness in their action or attitudes. Too often sin makes us complacent, dulling our spiritual sensitivity and blocking the channel of God’s blessing. Tom Elliff, explains this fact in his book, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>The Pathway to God’s Presence. </i></span><span lang="en-US">He said: “</span><span lang="en-US"><i>a believer’s life, without the presence of God, is destined to flounder because we are not immune to the pressures and strains of life” </i>[10]<i>.</i></span><span lang="en-US"> It is a sobering thought that the loss of a definite sense of His presence might be the reason for our failure and low-level impact.</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">The lack of intimacy and God’s presence can rob us of God’s best, but we find ourselves hesitant to discuss it or even acknowledge or be willing to address this issue. It seems to be easier to just launch a new program and project, instead of becoming quiet, sit at His feet and allow Him to speak to us. However, exhausted by the added responsibilities, pressures and demands of the day, we find ourselves drifting away from our commitment to the Lord, lacking spiritual power and energy, resulting in failure, discouragement, more frustration and no lasting impact on our community. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Is there any Hope?</span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">It is easy to despair. Robert Coleman, in his book </span><span lang="en-US"><i>The Coming World Revival</i></span><span lang="en-US"> states that it is easy to be pessimistic when problems seem overwhelming. Everything seems to be dark and one may feel that a better future seems to be impossible. However, we must remember that it is usually in these periods of great darkness and crises that revivals and transformations were born. This can happen today as well. Coleman says that our sense of helplessness can make us more sensitive to the need for supernatural grace. [11]</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Billy Graham, well-known evangelist once asked a university professor what he thought was the greatest need of our hour. He responded:</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> “<span lang="en-US"><i>I could give you a variety of answers all the way from tax relief to disarmament. I may surprise you, because I am not a religious man, but I believe that the greatest need that we have at this hour is a spiritual awakening which will restore individual and collective morals and integrity throughout the nation</i></span><span lang="en-US">.” [12]</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">First century Christians and churches had their problems but they were able to change and transform the world. Today we have all the resources and technology but we struggle with changing the world. Could it be that we have been looking for answers in all the wrong places? Just like the people of Israel and Gideon could it be that God is allowing us to drift away from Him because we have stopped seeking Him and replaced Him and His agenda with our own agenda and way of thinking? </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I believe that there is hope and that God is presently at work. God still speaks. He is still present and He still cares. The question is: Can we see Him, hear Him speak in and for the times we live in? As I travel throughout the nation, I see some encouraging signs:</span></span></div>
<ul>
<li>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">There are a growing number of people that is longing for more. They cry out for more reality in their walk with God and for a deeper knowledge of God. They know God is alive and are not satisfied with the current status and their experience.</span></span></div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">They also want to see and experience God today like in the ways God’s people have experienced His mighty power and presence, in Scripture and in history. </span> </span></div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">There is a willingness to return to God’s standards and His agenda, wanting to Glorify Him.</span></span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div>
<img src="https://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=2%5f0%5f0%5f1%5f1%5fAMN2imIDXaYTWCBu%2bgCgKK2Eq%2fM&m=YaDownload&pid=2.2&fid=Inbox&inline=1&appid=YahooMailNeo" /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Where to start?</span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><b><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">The heart`s cry of many is for a genuine revival – revival that comes from God and not from man. History gives testimony that whenever God had sent revival or there was a touch of His people, lives had been changed. Christians and Churches also have experienced new power and fervor to do His work and glorify Him. But, many are saying, “We don’t know what do? Where do we start? </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">God’s Word provides the answer. He has spoken clearly about His expectations and standards. He has revealed some principles and examples. He has created all mankind for His glory (Isaiah 43:7). So, how do we glorify Him? By doing and finishing His work and agenda (John 17:4). I believe that if we give special attention to what is on His heart, He will reveal and manifest Himself once again (John 14:21-23). What is on His heart?</span></span></div>
<ul>
<li>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">His eternal and personal purpose and plan (Romans 8:29)</span></span></div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">His Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20)</span></span></div>
</li>
<li>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">His compassion for the harvest and our response (Matthew 9: 35-38)</span></span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">Firstly, we need to realize that Revival and Spiritual Awakening starts with God’s people and understand how that connects with His purposes and great commission. What is Revival? When does God send Revival? Why does He send Revival? What should we be doing right now? </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Do you long for real revival and fresh encounter with God</i></span><span lang="en-US">?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span> <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><img alt="Image result for revival spiritual" height="217" src="https://godspeaksilisten.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/revival-best-best.jpg" width="320" /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">Secondly, Christians and Churches need to become transformational in impacting their surrounding communities and cultures if we want to see lasting change. It will only happen if we understand our call and character and how that affects our community and culture. We also need to become ‘TransforMissional’ in our outlook and approach for the future, as we </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Re-discover the biblical model for lasting transformation</i></span><span lang="en-US">. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">God is ready to bless us (Hebrews 11:6) and pour out times of refreshing. He is waiting for us to return to His heart and His original intention, adjust our lives, schedules and agendas and respond in obedience to Him. </span> </span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a> <span lang="en-US">Will you be such a person? Will you stop, reflect and pay attention to what you, your church or country experience? God is not dead and gone. He is still to be found. He cares and still speaks. He is waiting for us to return to His heart and experience His power and presence. Don’t settle for less.</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Author: Dr. Francois Carr</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Notes:</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">1. Stephen Olford, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Heart Cry for Revival</i></span><span lang="en-US"> (Ross-shire, Scotland, Christian Focus, 1962), p 15</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">2. Dave Early, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Living in His Presence</i></span><span lang="en-US"> (Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers, 2005), p 77-78)</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">3. Ron Blue, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Surviving Financial Meltdown</i></span><span lang="en-US"> (Tyndale House Publishers, Carol Stream, Illinois, 2009), page 3</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">4. Dave Early, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Living in His Presence</i></span><span lang="en-US"> (Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers, 2005), p 78)</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">5. Henry Blackaby, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Fresh Encounter </i></span><span lang="en-US">(Nashville, Tennesee, LifeWay, 2006), Backpage</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">6. John Dickerson, The Great Evangelical Recession</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">7. Jim Cymabla, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Storm </i></span><span lang="en-US">(Grand Rapis, Zondervan, 2014), p 10-13 and backpage</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">8. Bruce Bennie, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Andrew Murray Theologian by Heart (</i></span><span lang="en-US">South Australia, 2004) p 17-18</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">9. Bruce Bennie, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>Andrew Murray Theologian by Heart (</i></span><span lang="en-US">South Australia, 2004) p 19</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span lang="en-US">10. Tom Elliff, </span><span lang="en-US"><i>The Pathway to God’s Presence</i></span><span lang="en-US"> (Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, CLC Publications, 2014), p. 39</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">11. Robert Coleman, The Coming World Revival (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1989), Introduction</span></span></div>
<div align="justify" class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;">12. Lewis Drummond, Eight Keys to Biblical Revival (Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers, 1994), p 7)</span></span><br />
<span lang="en-US"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span> <span style="background-color: white; text-align: start;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Francois Carr, BTH, MCC, D. Min, NDPM, is the Executive Director of Heart Cry in South Africa. He is well known for his burden for revival and a popular speaker in Africa, North America, Europe, United Kingdom and New Zealand. He authored several books and articles on prayer, holiness and revival. Francois’s ministry, Encountering God and Heart Cry exist to glorify God by helping Christians and churches to experience God more intimately and mentor them on the way to Revival and Spiritual Awakening. He co-sponsors the Heart Cry for Revival Conference that takes place at the Billy Graham Training centre in Asheville, NC. He is married to Dorothea, have one child and currently resides in Pretoria, South Africa. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" lang="af-ZA" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-25322049165328578382016-11-07T23:55:00.002-08:002019-07-02T05:08:36.356-07:00Science and the spiritual realm<div lang="zxx" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>The spiritual realm is the most basic ingredient found in about all religion. It has often been forcefully renounced in scientific circles. Atheists take it for granted that it does not exist. In this essay, I show how that realm has been conceptualized in Immanuel Kant's philosophy. I also argue that its existence has been confirmed in science in the context of the quantum realm!</i></span>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">The idea that a spiritual realm exists alongside our material world is extremely old. All the peoples of the ancient world believed in it. They believed that although this realm is inaccessible to our senses, it nonetheless exists and we have access to it through our human soul/spirit. Apart from human spirits, there are also other kinds of spirits and gods who belong to that realm. The spiritual realm is also part and parcel of the Judaeo-Christian worldview. In their view, God's Spirit is operative in the spiritual realm. They also believe that this realm makes life after death possible and that heaven and hell exist in this realm.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">With the onset of the scientific age, the validity of these ideas was increasingly questioned. Although science is clearly restricted in its reach and is only able to study those things which are empirically accessible, some took that to mean that only that which is in fact so accessible should be reasonably accepted into our metaphysical view of the world. Enlightenment atheists and agnostics believed that the ancient belief about a realm outside our sensible and experimental reach is just a pie in the sky. In their view, such religious views have no scientific grounding and should be discarded since they belong to the pre-scientific age when people held primitive ideas, many of which have been refuted by science. In their view, we cannot believe things that cannot be proven. And since this realm lies beyond the reach of our experiments, they rejected it.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Even today, when we consider the spiritual realm in the context of the scientific conversation, some would immediately take offence. They feel that it is totally unacceptable to even seriously consider something like that. Now, I agree that we cannot at this point in our scientific progress say anything about the existence of spiritual entities. On the other hand, the possible existence of such a supersensible realm that exists alongside our material realm is in fact nowadays within the reach of serious science! We can consider its possible existence in the light of contemporary science. I argue in this essay that its existence is confirmed in quantum physics.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">When we want to discuss such a realm in the context of serious science, we must, first of all, say what such a realm would entail. We need a rational-theoretical model that we can subject to rigorous scientific testing. Luckily we have such a model: The philosopher Immanuel Kant developed such a metaphysical model in which he incorporated exactly such a supersensible realm!! Kant gave very particular specifics on what such a realm would be like if it exists. In this essay, I use this Kantian model when I engage with the question of whether that realm has been confirmed in science.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Philosophy and the spiritual realm</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">The intellectual consideration of the spiritual realm started with the well-known philosopher Plato (5th to 4th century BC). Plato reworked the idea of the spiritual realm as it was taught by the Orphics, an early group of mystics, into his own idea of an intelligible realm. As such he conceptualized this realm as an invisible realm which, although inaccessible to our senses, may be accessed through our intellectual intuition. In his <i>Phaedo</i>, Plato states quite openly that his idea is based on the spiritual realm of the Orphics and he even argues that the soul exists in that realm. As such two worlds may be distinguished: A visible world in which the human body exists and an invisible realm in which the soul exists. </span>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">In Plato's view, the invisible realm is "the realm of the absolute, constant and invariable" whereas the visible world is always changing. He got this idea from Parmenides of Elea (born ca. 515 BC) who also argued for two such worlds, namely one that is the "real" world which is eternal, indivisible, motionless and changeless and the other which is the world of our senses, which is a world of "appearances". In Plato's view, the invisible "forms" of material things belong to the first realm, whereas the visible things of the material world belong to the second realm. Insofar as the soul is concerned, he writes in the <i>Phaedo</i>: "Since the soul is invisible, it belongs to the eternal invisible world... When it [the soul] investigates by itself, it passes into the realm of the pure and everlasting and changeless; and being of a kindred nature, when it is once independent and free from interference, consorts with it".</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Plato's opinion about the relation between these worlds changed through the course of his writing. At first (in the <i>Phaedo</i>) the "invisible world" is viewed as a separate domain where human souls go between lives (and where the gods live), but in the <i>Republic</i>, the "intelligible" world (as it is now called) is more closely connected to our own world. This (our) world is somehow dependent on the "real" world for its existence (where the forms for the phenomena in this world are situated). In the <i>Timaeus</i>, the real world (of unchanging being where the forms are situated) underlies this world (of becoming) in a very real sense in that it gives form to it.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Plato's idea of the intelligible and phenomenal realms was reworked by later philosophers like Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). In this essay, I am only concerned with Kant's so-called "critical period" when he wrote his great philosophical works. Kant accepted the Platonic distinction between the "noumenal" world, as he calls Plato's intelligible world (from the Greek word for understanding, "nous"), and the phenomenal world. In Kant's view, the noumenal realm is the substrate of the phenomenal world [1] and all phenomena have originally appeared from that substrate. Kant also accepts the human soul, which in his thinking is just the "noumenal" part of humans, i.e. that part which belongs to the noumenal realm.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">In Kant's metaphysics as he presented it in his philosophy of science in the <i>Critique of the Power of Judgment</i>, the noumenal realm, which is also called the "supersensible realm", has five basic characteristics, namely 1) it is supersensible, that is, beyond human experiential and experimental reach, 2) it is outside proper space/time 3) it is outside "nature", which refers not to empirical nature but the concept of nature as a system which is ruled by mechanism, that is, deterministic causality 4) it is governed by absolute spontaneity and the entities in this realm, the non-extended wholes-and-parts (my terminology) has the spontaneous potentiality to produce material parts and aggregated wholes in nature 5) it produces phenomena in nature which simply "appear" in contrast with the appearances of everyday objects of the senses (for a detailed discussion, see [2]).</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Since Kant's time, there had been general agreement in philosophical circles that such a realm does not exist and that Kant has merely brought it into his philosophy to accommodate the Judaeo-Christian worldview, especially the soul and life after death. The problem that they had with this realm is that it is forever beyond empirical reach. Science can therefore never engage with it.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><b>The supersensible realm and science </b></span>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">There is, however, one important possibility regarding the supersensible realm that Kant did not foresee which may allow partial empirical access of that realm (allowing for the possibility of manipulating entities in such a realm). This concerns his conception of space and time. Kant took space and time as pure intuitions through which we as humans engage with the material world. He also allows for various possible conceptions of space which may (through reason) be ascribed to those things that are beyond perception, which includes "noumena" (the entities that belong to the noumenal realm). Kant calls this "ideal space". What Kant did not foresee is that time may be coupled, not with proper space (as we normally do in perceiving the material world), but with ideal space which describes noumena.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">If this last possibility is allowed, then we might be able to bring the noumenal realm under scientific scrutiny. And this is exactly what happened. In quantum mechanics, space and time are decoupled and time is coupled with abstract Hilbert space which is associated with quantum entities. <i>We know today that the quantum realm adheres to all the Kantian characteristics of the noumenal realm</i> as I will now show.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">1. Supersensible. Quantum entities in their pre-measurement state have irreducibly complex amplitudes (i.e. in terms of complex numbers) and as such, they can never be brought into the range of human perception which is restricted to material things governed by real numbers (these complex numbers do not even have a real component). It is only when we measure these entities that they become situated in proper space-time.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">2. Outside proper space-time. The kind of space that is used to mathematically describe these quantum entities (called Hilbert space) is also described in complex numbers! Although there have been efforts to reformulate such equations in proper space, these have not been successful (their complex nature is merely made implicit). The entities that we study in quantum mechanics are therefore not in proper space until we measure them. In Quantum Field Theory, the quantum entities are even outside space-time before measurement [3]. This is exactly what Kant has postulated for the supersensible realm.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">3. Outside "nature". The quantum mode of existence (as I call it) which involves superpositions of states is also outside "nature". The interactions between quantum entities go beyond the proper space-time framework as can be seen in the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen) experiments (this name originated from their famous paper). Such connections are not restricted to the deterministic rules governing objects in space-time. In fact, Redhead [4] has shown that the so-called Bell proof (which led to the EPR experiments) implies that all kinds of determinism have broken down in these interactions between the quantum entities.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">4. Spontaneity. We also know that the quantum mode of existence is governed by another rule than determinism, namely indeterminism (which may be taken as spontaneity). Niels Bohr used the empirical evidence of spontaneity to formulate his well-known quantum postulate. As such we can say that quantum outcomes are spontaneously produced. One of the clearest examples of such spontaneity is atomic decay which happens absolutely spontaneously without any external intervention. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span> <span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">5. Phenomena that "appear". The phenomena that are so produced - which include those microscopic particles that are observed during impacts, in bubble chambers etc. - are different from the everyday phenomena in that they "appear" from the quantum substrate.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Image result for bubble chambers images" src="http://courses.washington.edu/partsym/Img/bubble.jpg" height="260" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="320" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bubble chamber: particles "appear"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">It is clear that all five relevant characteristics of Kant's supersensible realm have been confirmed in quantum physics. This means that science has confirmed the existence of a supersensible realm exactly in the form that Kant postulated it in his metaphysics! The quantum realm is, in fact, Kant's supersensible realm. Although the existence of the soul has not yet come into the range of scientific research, there is no reason why that would not eventually happen [5]. The fact is, however, that this very realm that modernist philosophers and scientists rejected as a pie in the sky, has now been (indirectly) confirmed empirically.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">This brings me to a remarkable observation: all the ancients believed in a supersensible realm which was forcefully rejected by modernist science and especially by atheists since it did not conform to their worldview. The ancients were right; the modernist scientists, philosophers and atheists were wrong! The very spiritual realm that Kant conceptualized as the noumenal realm in his philosophy - which in philosophical discussion originated with the view of the mystics in Plato's time - has now been confirmed by science. </span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">We live in remarkable times! The science of modernist times is dead - and the metaphysical views that were grounded on that science are dead too. Although those who reject the possibility of a spiritual realm do so mainly because they reject the idea of gods (spirits) and especially God, it seems that scientific discovery is not on their side. Scientific research and discovery about what our world is like are consistent with a supersensible - or spiritual - realm.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">I freely admit that this essay is restricted in scope and that the issues require more detailed discussion. I have already done this elsewhere [2]. Although atheists could try to argue that the view presented here is merely one alternative to other possible readings of quantum physics, I can say in defence that the basic things that I argue for regarding the supersensible realm (the five characteristics) are indeed widely accepted in scientific and philosophical circles. I argue that science has in fact confirmed Kant's conceptual system which was originally based on the idea of the spiritual realm. I conclude: the spiritual realm (in its most basic formulation) has been confirmed by science.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[1] Interpreters usually think that Kant's idea of the noumenal realm in his first great work, the <i>Critique of Pure Reason</i>, is substantially different from that in the two other <i>Critiques</i>, namely the <i>Critique of Practical Reason</i> and the <i>Critique of the Power of Judgment</i>. I reject that. In my view, Kant held similar views (which did develop over time) throughout his critical period, i.e. in all three <i>Critiques</i>.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[2] </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;">McLoud, W. </span></span></span></span><a href="https://www.academia.edu/38283361/Kant_Noumena_and_Quantum_Physics" target="_blank">Kant, Noumena and Quantum Physics</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> p</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">ublished in </span><i style="color: #26282a; font-family: inherit;">Contemporary Studies in Kantian Philosophy</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #26282a; font-family: inherit;"> 3 (2018)</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[3] Auyang, S. Y. 1995. <i>How is Quantum Field Theory Possible?</i> Oxford: Oxford University.</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[4] Redhead, M. 1987. <i>Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism. A prolegomenon to the philosophy of </i></span><i>quantum mechanics.</i> Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">[5] I plan to argue for the existence of the soul in one of the essays in this series.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The author is a scientist-philosopher (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy)</span><span style="font-size: small;">. He writes on issues of religion, philosophy and science. </span></span>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Science and God. Part 1: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/11/the-problem-of-spontaneity-in-quantum.html">The problem of spontaneity in quantum mechanics</a></span></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Science and Go</span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">d. Part 2: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/03/science-and-our-restricted-human.html">Science and our restricted human understanding</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Science and God. Part 3: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/science-and-metaphysics-in-search-of.html" target="_blank">Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot</a></span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science and God. Part 5. <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/03/in-defense-of-soul.html" target="_blank">In defence of the soul</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science and God. Part 6: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/06/science-and-atheism.html" target="_blank">Science and Atheism</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Science and God. Part 7: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-rapture-different-views.html" target="_blank">Science and spiritual intuition</a></span><br />
Science and God. Part 8: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-christian-and-evolution.html" target="_blank">The Christian and Evolution</a><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-82332422807518761952016-10-03T08:27:00.001-07:002019-08-01T06:09:31.348-07:00The final Antichrist: the different views<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div class="Standard">
<i>In this essay, I discuss the most important views about the final Antichrist. The main question is: Would there be a final Antichrist who appears in the period preceding the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? And if so, how will we recognize him? I provide a fresh assessment of our understanding of the major Bible prophecies that have traditionally been interpreted as referring to the final Antichrist. Previous essays in this series include “The final world empire: the different views” and “The final seven years: the different views”.</i></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
The study of Bible prophecy has throughout the ages intrigued many generations of Bible scholars and students. One of the topics that has been extensively studied is that of the Antichrist. This figure is of special importance in the sense that he represents that which is the opposite of the Christ or Messiah. Many Christians believe that he would rise in the end times in the climax of the ages to fight with Jesus Christ during the great battle of Armageddon – and that his rule would be accompanied by special hardship and tribulation. Others scholars think that we should rather think in terms of various antichrists that include historical persons like Nero, although some of them would not exclude the possibility of a final Antichrist arising at the end of time.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
The word “antichrist” appears only in the epistles of St. John. He mentions that there would be many antichrists as well as a final Antichrist: “Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come” (1 Joh. 2:18). He also says that the spirit of the Antichrist was already working in the world during his own time. Although the word Antichrist does not appear elsewhere, various prophecies have been interpreted as referring to this final Antichrist among which the most important are in the Books of Daniel and Revelation as well as in St. Paul’s writings.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
In this essay, I take a fresh look at the person of the Antichrist. In doing so, I carefully consider the most important views about the Antichrist, namely the Biblical Criticism view that takes the prophecies as merely referring to historical persons (some of these scholars reject the notion of prophecy itself, see [1] for a discussion), the Historical view as well as the Futuristic view. I ask: what view makes the best sense when the integrity of the text and the historical context are considered. In my view, we should in any such study take care to really <i>listen</i> to the voices of the prophets and the Hebrew tradition from which they originate.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
Any serious scholar would have to admit that old Israel believed in prophecy in the sense of divinely inspired pronouncements that goes beyond the limited perspectives of the prophets [1]. Although scholars may disagree with that notion due to their own metaphysical commitments, they should at the very least accept that old Israel believed in it. As such we might allow that – if God truly inspired the prophets – some of these prophecies may refer to a final Antichrist who will appear at the end of days. We should not exclude certain views in principle just because we do not believe in it.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
<b>Does the Antichrist only refer to past historical persons?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
In our study of the Antichrist, we restrict ourselves to the most important prophecies that are generally considered to refer to the final Antichrist. The first of these appear in the Book of Daniel, chapter 7. This is a very remarkable prophecy according to which the prophet Daniel is said to have had a vision in which various beasts appear one after the other from the sea, namely a lion with the wings of an eagle, a bear with three ribs between its teeth, a leopard with four heads and finally a dreadful and terrible beast, with iron teeth, which was exceedingly strong. This final beast had ten horns on its head.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
While the prophet watched, another horn appeared which grew to be greater in appearance than the others. He had the eyes and mouth of a man. He spoke pompous words against the Most High and persecuted the saints for a period of “a time, times and half a time”. The prophet then saw how the judgment seat of the Ancient of Days was put in place and how all the heavenly multitudes appeared around it. The beasts were judged. Then he saw one like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. He came to the Ancient of days and received an everlasting dominion over all peoples, nations and languages.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
There are general agreement among Biblical scholars that these beasts should be taken in geopolitical context as referring to the various empires that appeared in the Middle East <i>to rule over the land of Israel</i>. The question is, however, which empires are referred to? There are general agreement that the lion refers to the Neo-Babylonian Empire (626-539 BC) to which the great Nebuchadnezzar belonged. The second beast, namely the bear, would refer to the next great empire, namely the Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BC) [2]. As for the rest, scholars are divided as to how exactly the application should be made (for a detailed discussion of the different views, see [3]).</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
Scholars from the Biblical Criticism school believe that the “prophecy” was written after the events happened. This means that all the relevant events should fit into the period before 164 BC (the book was written shortly after that in their view). Although many traditional scholars take the eleventh horn on the head of the fourth beast as referring to the final Antichrist, Biblical Criticism scholars believe that it refers to the Syrian (Seleucid) king Antiochus IV Epiphanes who captured Jerusalem in 167 BC. In their view, one should regard this horn as the same one that is mentioned in the next chapter (8).</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
In Daniel 8 we read that the prophet saw a ram with two horns fighting against a male goat with one large horn between its eyes. The male goat with the single large horn cast the ram on the ground and trampled on it. After that, the goat grew very great, but then its horn was broken and four notable horns came in its place. Out of one of these came another horn that grew very great. It took power over the “Glorious Land” (Israel) and cast down some of the hosts of heaven. During that time the sanctuary was desecrated for a period of two thousand three hundred days and the holy people were “destroyed”.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
In this case, the interpretation of the vision is also provided. The ram with two horns is said to refer to the kings of Media and Persia. This is a reference to the Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BC). The male goat is said to refer to the first king of the kingdom of Greece – that is, Alexander the Great (336-323 BC), founder of the Greek (Macedonian) Empire. The four horns that rose in the place of the first one are said to refer to the four kingdoms into which his kingdom was divided after his death. These were the Ptolemaic kingdom, the Seleucid empire (later kingdom), the kingdom of Pergamon and the kingdom of Macedon. The fifth horn refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC), who became king of the Seleucid kingdom. He persecuted the Jews and defiled the temple.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
The essential question is whether the eleventh horn in the prophecy about the four beasts is the same as the fifth horn in the prophecy about the ram and goat? Since it is assumed in Biblical Criticism circles that the book was written after the events that happened during the time of Antiochus IV, they accept that the author cannot refer to anything else but those events. The problem is, however, that there are important differences between the two visions that made such a view suspect. Although the horn in the vision of the ram and goat obviously refers to Antiochus IV, the horn in the other vision does not appear on the head of the corresponding beast, which is the leopard with four heads (which signify the four parts into Alexander’s empire was divided). Rather, it appears on the head of the next beast, the great and terrible one with ten horns, which has no equivalent in the vision of the ram and goat.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
Although one may try to force everything mentioned in these visions into the historical period that ends with the death of Antiochus IV, this is not good hermeneutical practice. One should be open to other possibilities, especially that which is clearly alluded to in the book, namely that this is a prophecy about future events. In this case, one cannot but to see the remarkable correspondence between the great and terrible beast and the Roman Empire (see [3] for a detailed discussion).</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
Of special importance is the fact that the eleventh horn that grows from the head of this beast is said to appear in the period before the final judgment when one like the Son of Man would appear on the clouds of heaven. To what does this refer? Jesus applies this prophecy in the Book of Daniel to his Second Coming: “they will see the Son of Man coming with power and great glory” (Matt. 24:30).</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
If we take Jesus’ words seriously, then the prophecy about the four beasts covers a very long period, namely from the time of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, when Daniel is said to have lived, until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. This means that the eleventh horn does not refer to Antiochus IV but to an Antichristian figure that would appear at the time of the end. In this case, Antiochus IV may be regarded as a type of the final Antichrist, but he is not the only such figure referred to in the Book of Daniel.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
Another important prophecy that is often taken as referring to the final Antichrist, is that about the beast in the Book of Revelation. The interesting thing about the description of this beast is that it builds upon the prophecy in the Book of Daniel about the four beasts that we have just discussed. In fact, the beast of Revelation shows a remarkable correspondence with the eleventh horn in Daniel’s prophecy. If we accept that the beast is just another reworking of the original prophecy in the Book of Daniel, then it might again refer to the final Antichrist. But again, Biblical Criticism scholars beg to differ.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
We find a detailed description of the beast of Revelation in chapter 13. In this case, we read that the beast is a composite figure with characteristics of all four the beasts that appear from the sea in Daniel’s prophecy. It looks like a leopard, has feet like that of a bear, with a mouth of a lion and ten horns on its heads (it has seven heads). As is said about the eleventh horn in the prophecy of Daniel, the beast blasphemies against God and makes war against the saints and overcome them. He does this for a period of forty-two months – which agree with the period mentioned in Daniel, namely a period consisting of a time (1 year), times (2 years) and half a time (½ year).</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
Scholars from the Biblical Criticism view believe that this beast refers to one of the Caesars of the Roman Empire who lived in the time before the Book of Revelation was written (in about 96 AD). Nero is often mentioned. In this case, they believe that although the images originate from Daniel 7, they are now applied to the Caesar. Again they believe that no future prophecy is intended. And again this involves forcing certain aspects of this image within a historical perspective that does not fit well.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
We, for example, read that the beast would rule with ten kings who have not yet received kingship in the time when the book was written: “The ten horns that you saw are ten kings <i>who have received no kingdom as yet</i>, but they receive authority for one hour [period] as kings with the beast. They are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast” (Rev. 17:12-13). This strongly suggests that future events are intended.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
What is more, in this case we again find that the reign of the beast is placed in the time of the Second Coming of Jesus! We read that the beast will make war with the Lamb [Jesus Christ] (Rev. 17:14). This war is depicted in Revelation 19 where Jesus Christ is described as riding out on a white horse against his enemy. In this case, we read: “And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and his army. Then the beast was captured and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence” (Rev. 19:19-20). Although it is true that the Book of Revelation is to be read carefully with due consideration for all the many symbols used in the book, there cannot be any doubt that a good hermeneutical approach means that we must consider all the parts of the story about the beast together.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
As such it is quite clear that the reign of the beast is placed in future perspective. Although scholars from this school of thought may reject the idea of a future Second Coming, they have to admit that the Christians of that time did think in such terms and that this view is reflected in the book. Again, one should at least be open to the possibility that this should be considered as prophecy, as it is also stated at the beginning of the book (Rev. 1:3). <i>Insofar as this may be considered to be prophecy</i>, the beast is merely another depiction of the eleventh horn of Daniel 7 which refers to a final Antichrist who would appear in the time of the end.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
<b>The man of sin<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
Another important prophecy that is taken by many traditional scholars as referring to the final Antichrist, is in St. Paul’s second Epistle to the Thessalonians, chapter 2. In this famous passage St. Paul describes the period preceding the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. He writes that the Thessalonians should not think that the “coming of our Lord Jesus and our gathering to Him” can take place at any moment. Before that can happen, certain important events should first happen, namely the “falling away”, which refers to a period of religious decline, and the “man of sin” must be revealed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
St. Paul writes: “that Day [of the Lord] will not come unless the falling away comes first. And the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Th. 3:3-4). St. Paul writes that the Thessalonians know what is restraining him that he may be revealed in his own time. He says it is only once he who now restrains is taken out of the way, that the “lawless one” will be revealed, “whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming” (2 Th. 2:8). The revelation of the man of sin would be accompanied with great power, signs and lying wonders worked by Satan himself.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
Most Biblical scholars believe that St. Paul refers to the final Antichrist when he speaks of the “man of sin”. It is quite clear from the passage that this person would be on the world scene in the time when Jesus appears in the time of his Second Coming. This is also in line with our reading of the prophecies in the Books of Daniel and Revelation that such a person would appear in that time. In fact, <i>all the prophecies that we discussed place the final Antichrist in the period before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ</i> (the Son of man coming with the clouds of haven). All scholars who take this as referring to a future Antichrist do, however, not agree about the meaning of the passage.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
Some scholars, from the Historical School (the name originates from the way in which they interpret the Book of Revelation), believe that St. Paul does not refer to a single person but to an office that is occupied by many different persons, namely the papacy. Their view originated in the time of the Reformation when the persecution of Christians by the Roman Catholic Church was still fresh in their minds.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
This interpretation is based on an interesting reading of the discussed passage. They take the view of the early church about the one who restrains the coming of the Antichrist, as the point of departure. In the passage St. Paul refers to both a “that [or: it]” which (verse 6) and a “he” who (verse 7) restrains. The early church understood these as referring to the Roman Empire and the Roman Caesar – which would occupy the place of the Antichristian empire until its time comes and would then stand out of the way for it to appear (this reading is perfectly compatible with the Greek words used).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
These scholars apply this logic to the Antichrist. They argue that the same reading should be applied to the Antichrist, which would then refer not to a single person (just as no particular Caesar is referred to) but to the position they occupy (the papacy). They then apply this interpretation to all passages that refer to the future Antichrist. Since the papacy has been on the scene for a very long time, they take certain events as signifying the beginning of the period of the rule of the “Antichrist”, which would last for 1260 years (they take each day of the 3 ½ years referred to previously in our discussion of prophecies in the Books of Daniel and Revelation, as referring to one year).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
Although this view is intriguing, it is difficult to reconcile such a position that is held by many persons (the papacy) with the words “man of sin” and “son of perdition”. We also read that he is the “lawless one” who will be revealed and whom Jesus Christ would destroy with his coming. The words use by St. Paul clearly refers to a single person. Also, the period during which he would persecute the saints, is described as lasting for “a time [1 year], times [2 years] and half a time [½ year]”, 1260 days or 42 months (Rev. 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14; 13:5), which strongly suggest that 3 ½ prophetic years (of 360 days) are implied. One of the biggest problems of this view is that their calculations of the period have left them with red faces as the history of the Seventh-Day Adventists show.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
<b>The beast and the harlot<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
I previously discussed various themes that are closely related to that of the final Antichrist, namely the ten “kings” who would rule with him [3] as well as the final seven years [4]. I will not engage with that again. Space also does not permit me to discuss the themes mentioned above, namely the tribulation (persecution of the saints), the deception of the last days, the falling away and so forth. There is one other topic that is of importance in our understanding of the final Antichrist that is not discussed that often, namely his relationship with the great “harlot” who is described in the Book of Revelation as a woman clothed in scarlet who rides on the beast (Rev. 17).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
The harlot is presented as a beautiful woman arrayed in purple and scarlet and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls. She holds a golden cup in her hand and sits on the beast, who came from the bottomless pit and go to perdition (see “son of perdition” above). She is said to have committed fornication with the kings of the earth and is “drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs” (Rev. 17:6). Somehow she represents a “mystery” and she is called Babylon, the Great.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
Who is this woman? We read that the seven heads of the beast that carries her are the seven mountains on which she sits (verse 9). These seven mountains are without a doubt the seven hills on which the ancient city of Rome is located. This is why we also read that she “is the great city which reigns over the kings of the earth” (verse 18). Rome was the great city who ruled over “all the earth” in the days when the Book of Revelation was written. The name given to her, namely Babylon, is also used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to Rome (1 Pet. 5:13). Somehow ancient Babylon, that great enemy of Israel, is now replaced with the new Babylon, Rome.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Image result for beast of Revelation painting" src="http://taylormarshall.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Whore_of_Babylon.jpg" height="242" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The beast of Revelation carrying the great harlot</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="Standard">
The prophecy in Revelation is about the judgment of the harlot and we find a whole song written in advance to commemorate her fall (Rev. 18). How will she fall? She will fall when the ten kings who rule with the beast in the time of the Second Coming, will burn her: “And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire” (verse 16). This means that the prophecy is not about the fall of Rome in the time when the Germanic leader Odoacer conquered her in 476 AD but refers to a future event.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
Insofar as this is to be considered as a prophecy about the end times, the only entity that suits the description of the harlot is the Roman Catholic Church which does not only have its seat in Rome, which had not only brought many states in an alliance with her, but which had also spilled the blood of many Christians whom she has persecuted throughout the ages. The killing of Christians was officially sanctioned since the time when the first Waldensians were burned as heretics in 1211 – their persecution persisted throughout the ages and nearly led to their total extinction. In 1545, thousands were massacred and whole villages were destroyed [5]. The followers of John Wycliffe (1320-1384) and Jan Hus (1372-1415), who was burned at the stake for heresy, were also severely persecuted.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
The relation between the beast and harlot reflects that between political power and the Roman Catholic Church. This is reminiscent of the Holy Roman Empire that existed from 800 to 1806 AD (although not continuously). Since Charles the Great was crowned as the “new Constantine” in Rome in 800 AD, those Caesars ruled over this empire as a continuation of the old Roman Empire [6]. One may read the prophecy as saying that the Holy Roman Empire would be restored in the last days and that the Antichrist would take the place of the Caesars when he appears [7].</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
At this point in time, the Roman Catholic Church is actively involved in efforts to build an ever more unified European Union – presumably with the purpose to reestablish the Holy Roman Empire. The church played an important role in blocking the proposed constitution for the EU in 2005 since it did not have any reference to God. Some of the major political players, such as the first president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, and the current head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, are Jesuits. Pope Francis is also playing a very visible role and he, for example, gave a speech to the European Parliament in November 2014.</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
<b>Who will be the final Antichrist?<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
The final question to consider is: who will be the Antichrist? Although some Christians make a habit of pointing to certain political leaders as candidates for the Antichrist, the above analysis implies that he would take the role that was previously held by the Caesars (he may be the final ruler who comes to the throne once the Caesars are restored). The only candidates for such a position would be the ancient line of Hapsburg-Lorraine. There are, however, some prophecies that imply that the Antichrist would get that position by stealth which means that he may be from another family.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
There has recently been a family line who presents themselves as the ones to whom such a future position would rightfully belong. This is the House of Plantard de St. Clair. The interesting thing about this family is that their aims show remarkable agreement with the prophecies discussed above. On the one hand, there are strong indications that the secret order that works towards the restoration of this family to the throne, namely the Priory of Sion [8], plays an important role behind the scenes in constructing the EU as a United States of Europe [9]. Their goal seems to be to eventually get a pope of their choice elected who would recognize the claim of this family to the throne of such a restored Holy Roman Empire. On the other hand, they hate the Roman Catholic Church for certain wrongs done to them in the past [10]. One can think that they would eventually turn on it and try to destroy it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
This family has a particular anti-Christian image as supporters of the old pagan, hermetic and esoteric traditions. The strange thing is that they claim to be descended from the family of Jesus Christ (or even from himself). Although there are good reasons to think that they are an old European family, this last claim should be regarded as an elaborate hoax to fraudulently promote the claims of the family. Their conflict with the Roman Catholic Church (or rather certain groups in that church) has become the dominant theme in books such as the <i>Da Vinci Code</i> (2003).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
<b>Conclusion<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
In this essay, I discuss the most important views about a final Antichrist. Although there had been many antichrists in the past and we may take rulers such as Antiochus IV and Nero as such, there are good reasons to think that a final Antichristian figure who will appear in the period before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is referred to in Biblical prophecy. The purpose of this writing is not to give a detailed discussion of that period (see [3] and [4]) but merely to argue that such a person will rise in accordance with prophecy. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
In the view presented here, the Antichrist will not be a Muslim leader [7]. Rather, he will be the final ruler over a restored (Holy) Roman Empire who takes the place of the Caesars who went before. This means that Christians should not take any political leader that they do not like as a possible candidate for the final Antichrist. When the time comes, Christians will recognize him due to the prophecies. In this regard there are various other aspects of his reign that I have not discussed here, that give a more comprehensive picture of that time [11]. As Christians, we are not in the dark as to what that time would look like – but it is important that we use good hermeneutics when studying the Scriptures.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
[1] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/04/bible-prophecy-predicting-distant-future.html" style="background-color: white;" target="_blank"><span style="color: #444444;">Bible prophecy: predicting the distant future?</span></a></div>
<div class="Standard">
[2] Some scholars think that the author had the wrong impression that the Median and Persian Empire (i.e. the Achaemenid Empire) was two subsequent empires but this view is refuted by the text itself (Dan. 5:28; 8:20).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
[3] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/05/the-rise-of-final-world-empire.html" style="background-color: white;" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">The rise of the final world empire: the different views</span></a></div>
<div class="Standard">
[4] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/05/the-final-seven-years-different-views.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888;" target="_blank">The final seven years: the different views</a></div>
<div class="Standard">
[5] In 2015 the pope asked the Waldensian Christians for forgiveness for the persecution.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
[6] I previously argued [3] that the Holy Roman Empire is in fact referred to in another prophecy about the end times, namely the one in Daniel 2, where the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and the explanation given by the prophet are recounted. In this case, the king is said to have seen a statue made of various metals: its head was of gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet as well as its ten toes of iron and partly of clay. He saw how a rock crushed the statue and broke it into pieces.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
This prophecy corresponds on every point with that in Daniel 7, which I discussed above: the various metals correspond with the different beasts. Although the iron legs are described in the same terms as the terrifying beast with ten horns, in this case more detail is given, namely that the two legs (the two parts of the old Roman Empire) would find a continuation in the two feet of iron mixed with clay (the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire) which would eventually evolve into the kingdom of ten toes (corresponding with the ten horns). The final Antichrist would appear after these.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
[7] Some readers may think that the final Antichrist would be a Muslim leader. We can only reconcile this with Bible prophecy if the ten “kings” who rule with him refers to ten Muslim countries (or something like that). I discussed this view in [3] where I show that it has various problems which make that scenario very unlikely.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
[8] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2012/06/priory-of-sion-is-back.html" style="background-color: white;" target="_blank">The Priory of Sion is back</a></div>
<div class="Standard">
[9] The authors Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln provides a good discussion about this topic in their book <i>The Messianic Legacy</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
[10] The Plantards claim to be the direct male descendants of the Merovingians who ruled in Europe before the Carolingians (descendants of Charles the Great). According to them, the Roman Catholic Church negated on a promise to recognize them as the rightful kings of the Franks when they shifted their support to the Carolingians. They hate the church for that and works actively for its destruction.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
[11] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/10/when-can-second-coming-of-jesus-be.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888;" target="_blank">When can the Second Coming of Jesus be expected?</a></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com) </div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 13.5pt; margin-bottom: 14.15pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 13.5pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
The author has written a few books on eschatology including <i>Op pad na Armageddon, 31bepeinsings oor Openbaring en ander Bybelprofesieë</i> (1995) asook <i>Die Arabiese Opstande, Hoe raak dit die vervulling van Bybelprofesieë oor die eindtyd</i> (2011, Griffel). He has a Masters in Philosophy (University of Cape Town) as well as a PhD in physics (University of Natal). He writes and lectures on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 13.5pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;">
<br />
If readers find the essay important for the current debate, they are welcome to share it or forward it to others.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
In this series on eschatology, read also:<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 1: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/04/bible-prophecy-predicting-distant-future.html" style="color: #888888;" target="_blank">Bible prophecy: predicting the distant future?</a></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 2: </span><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/05/the-rise-of-final-world-empire.html" style="color: #888888;" target="_blank">The rise of the final world empire: the different views</a></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 3: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/05/the-final-seven-years-different-views.html" style="color: #888888;" target="_blank">The final seven years: the different views</a></span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="color: #666666;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: black;">Part 5: </span><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/10/when-can-second-coming-of-jesus-be.html" style="color: #888888;" target="_blank">When can the Second Coming of Jesus be expected?</a></span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #444444;">Part 6: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-rapture-different-views.html" target="_blank">The Rapture: The different views</a></span><br /><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/04/a-very-remarkable-prophecy.html" style="color: #666666;" target="_blank">A very remarkable prophecy</a><span style="color: #666666;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/05/the-jews-people-of-god.html" target="_blank">The Jews: the people of God?</a></span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard">
<br /></div>
</div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-30336641858650344252016-09-13T08:18:00.000-07:002019-08-01T06:43:59.091-07:00The Power of God<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>What the church needs today is the power of God. How can that power be unleashed?</i></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
We live in challenging times. As Christians, we are concerned about many of the changes in society which often have an impact on our own families. There are so many alternative narratives to which people are exposed – many are being sucked into other paradigms of thinking. The materialism of the Western world has given way to godlessness. More and more people in the Western world do not believe in God. Although we as Christians may point to many things beyond our control which drive this process, we should also ask what we can do in a time like this.</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
What can we as Christians do? So often Christians think in terms of their own efforts. What they can do or try to do. Rarely does one hear that Christians speak about what God can do. Yes, they believe that God would help them and that they are doing things in His name. The problem is, however, that all the human efforts in the church are often merely human efforts. Although God's name is constantly mentioned and many things are being done in His Name, the results are meagre and without real impact. In fact, it often seems that all are merely organizational stuff, not so dissimilar from any other social club. There is no deep desire that God should come in his power and do what only he can do.</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I believe that we as Christians have lost our vision of God. We are working and praying. We try our very best. But in all of this, we are merely concerned with what we think that we should do. In the Book of Acts, we read that Jesus warned the disciples that they should not even try to do anything in his name if they are not empowered through his Holy Spirit. He said that they would receive power when the Holy Spirit comes over them and that they would then be able to reach the ends of the world with the gospel. Against all odds and in the face of great institutionalized opposition and persecution from within the great Roman Empire and its powerful emperors, the church spread all over the known world in a relatively short period.</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
When we read through the Book of Acts we see that God used the church as a mighty instrument. The power of God was manifested through the church. God used both simple people like the fishermen-apostles and learned people like St. Paul in a powerful way to establish his church all over the world. <i>The single most important characteristic of the early church was the manifestation of the power of God in their midst.</i> And this is our problem: <i>the most important feature of the present day church is its powerlessness</i>. In our day there are a vast variety of churches in the Western world, some of which are more driven and enthusiastic than others in their efforts – but we do not see the power of God in action. We do not see that God changes society. We do not see that the bastions of power are in any significant way challenged by the power of God working through the church.</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If Jesus forbade the apostles in the early church from proceeding with their mission without his power, is the same not true today? If they had to fully surrender to God so that he could use them in his enterprises irrespective of the cost involved, is that not also true today? If they had to die to all their own ambitions and desires – even insofar as their efforts in the kingdom of God are concerned – is that not true for today? If St.Paul had to come to the place where Christ and him alone was his heart's desire – is not that also what God expects from us today?<br />
<br />
God cannot use us if we are not willing to die – to fully surrender to his will and become mere instruments in his hand. Our single biggest problem is that as church leaders we have great ambition for our own ministries and think that we are very important to God – whereas we ourselves and our self-centeredness are in fact the greatest problem. We stand in God's way to reveal Himself in powerful ways in our day and age.</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The church must return to the basics. The church must become aware of their own need for God. The church must rediscover Christ and the power of his Spirit. We would only see God working again in power through his church if we stop playing religion and start humbling ourselves before God. The church has to fully surrender to God – and allow him to use us as He pleases. This will only happen if individuals – Christians who are deeply concerned about the dispositions of their own hearts – humble themselves and fully surrender to God to do with them as He pleases. Are we really willing to do that? Are we really willing to die to ourselves?</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
That dear saintly man of God, George Muller, once wrote: "There was a day when I died; utterly died to George Muller, to his opinions, preferences, tastes and will, died to the world, its approval or censure; died to the approval or blame of even my brethren and friends. Since then I have studied to show myself approved only to God". That is the basic need of the church. This is the one thing that Christians do not talk about. This is the one thing that we try to ignore. But this is the ONE THING that God requires. If we are not willing to fully surrender to God, He cannot use us as he wishes. As such we cannot be the instruments of his power.</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If we want to see the power of God in action, we have to humble ourselves – both as leaders and as those who serve in all sorts of ministries. The church has to surrender to God if she wants to see his power in action. The question is: how bad must things get before this will happen. May God help us to stop talking and take him serious when he said that he cannot use us if we are not filled with the power of the Holy Spirit.</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)<br />
<br />
See also<br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/07/wrong-choices.html" target="_blank">Wrong choices</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/11/meeting-god.html" target="_blank">Meeting God</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/08/god-hoor.html" target="_blank">God hoor</a><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/12/something-or-someone-is-missing.html" target="_blank">Something or Someone is missing?</a> (Dr. Francois Carr)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/11/revival-is-of-lord.html" target="_blank">Revival is of the Lord</a> (Arjan Baan)</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #888888; font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/04/a-message-for-church.html" style="background-color: white; color: #888888;">A message for the church</a></span><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2013/04/die-profeet.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Die profeet</span></a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/06/om-god-te-glo.html" target="_blank">Om God te glo</a></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-6682733890759425562016-08-06T07:33:00.000-07:002019-07-02T05:10:50.142-07:00Science and metaphysics: in search of Russell's teapot<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Presenting a new argument for the existence of God</span></b></span><br />
<br />
<i>In the modernist era, science was often contrasted with metaphysics. Nowadays philosophers accept the inevitable: the metaphysics of science. But how does the metaphysics of science stand in relation to the metaphysics of worldviews? And how do the metaphysical views of Christians and atheists fare under the scrutiny of scientific discovery over the last two hundred years? It is a remarkable fact that the Judaeo-Christian worldview is historically much better confirmed than the atheistic one. This is, in fact, the raw nerve of atheism! This is part three of the series Science and God.</i><br />
<br />
Since the time when humans first wrote things down, they had metaphysical beliefs about the world. They held views about our cosmos that go far beyond the possibilities of our five senses. As such, they believed that humans have a soul (spirit), that other spirits or gods exist in a spiritual realm beyond our material world and that there is life for humans beyond our earthly existence. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition people furthermore believe in one creator God who gave his moral law and that humans have the ability (free choice) to live in accordance with that law [1].<br />
<br />
Since the time of the Enlightenment, many people have rejected these metaphysical views. Atheists and agnostics think that these views are the remnants of a pre-scientific worldview. They reject the idea that spirits or God exist (some developed new rationally inclined views, for example, about what the idea of “God” entails but that is beyond the scope of this essay). They believe that science and only science should guide our thinking. In this regard, they often confuse science with scientism – thinking that our human existence should be viewed only in terms of empirically demonstrated facts. As such they often do not appreciate the fact that this is also a mere metaphysical view of our human existence which makes claims that go far beyond the reach of science.<br />
<br />
The million dollar question is: which metaphysical view is correct? Both camps argue that they are right. As such a more sensible question is: How can we determine which view is correct? The problem in this regard is that the things that Christians (and Jews, for that matter) and atheists argue about lay beyond our sensible world. Although this may seem to be a dead end, it is not. A possible solution is to consider these worldviews in their historical context as theories which have over time been confirmed or denied by scientific research.<br />
<br />
In this essay, I cast the disagreement between Christians and atheists in terms of metaphysical worldviews which can be treated as theories and ask: which one has over the course of the last two hundred years shown itself to be correct insofar as we have been able to confirm or deny its presuppositions when measured against scientific progress? I use the work of the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) who has contrasted these metaphysical views in the context of some of his so-called antinomies, that is, conflicts of logical possibilities. In these antinomies, opposing rational positions are effectively brought into conflict with each other. I show that although the Judaeo-Christian worldview has not originated in science, it has by far been more successful than the atheistic view.<br />
<br />
<b>The metaphysics of science</b><br />
<br />
The conversation between Christians and atheists is often cast in terms of knowledge claims. In this regard atheists often present the Christian view as not built on any real knowledge. They argue that the Christian presuppositions about our cosmos go beyond that which is scientifically known and postulates things that can never be known. In this regard atheists often speak about the “god-in-the-gap” perspective: in the context of that which is unknown, one can postulate anything. The atheistic philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) famously wrote that the claims of the Christian religion are in effect unfalsifiable claims similar to saying that a tiny, undetectable teapot exists between Earth and Mars. In his view, the burden of proof lies with those making such claims to show that they are true. </div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Image result for bertrand russell" height="294" src="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/styles/the_breaking_news_image_style/public/Pictures/web/x/y/e/The_Pick_120112.jpg?itok=g1CuMo9V" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bertrand Russell</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><br />Bertrand Russell</b><br />
<br />
Russell lived in the modernist period (from the Enlightenment to the first part of the twentieth century) when most scientists believed that the nature of our world is in the realm of scientific proof. Although it is surely true that we can “objectively” assert certain things about the empirically accessible part of our world (see part 2 - the link is at the bottom of this essay), we know today that there are large parts of the cosmos for which this is just not possible (scientists nowadays think that more than 93 % of our world may be “dark” to our instruments). Even the well-known theories of general relativity and quantum physics describe events and entities that are not empirically accessible. The “Big Bang” is not so accessible; quantum entities (particles) are also outside direct empirical access – they are mathematically described as existing in a complex (abstract) space which is definitely not our space! In Quantum Field Theory they are even described as being outside proper space-time. Only when we measure them do they appear in our space-time.<br />
<br />
In this world, the idea of “proof” evaporates. That which Russell set out to do in this regard is today generally regarded as a total flop (i.e. his "logical atomism" which engendered the discredited "logical positivism"). Instead, we find that various “interpretations” of especially quantum physics theory have been developed – all of which view the reality of our world very different (for example, the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohm's interpretation, Von Neumann's observer interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation). Today we speak in the philosophy of science of the metaphysics of quantum physics. That is, there are various metaphysical views as to how the world really is beyond our empirical access thereof. In the place of “proof”, we are now engaged with “interpretations” due to the simple fact that we as humans are severely constrained in our experiential and experimental access to the world (see part 2).<br />
<br />
This problem has been foreseen long ago by Kant. A large part of his philosophy is concerned with the constrained nature of our human sensibility and understanding which in turn restrict our ability to acquire “objective” knowledge. Once we proceed in our thinking and theoretical (mathematical) modelling beyond these boundaries, we cannot obtain proof of anything. We may have good reason to think that something is such or such but one cannot prove it. Even in the case of our best scientific theories, nothing is proven!<br />
<br />
Although we may have indirect evidence which confirms the “correctness” of our theories, this can never prove that the world is like that. In the “Big Bang” theory, for example, we have indirect evidence that confirms this theory: the expanding universe (redshift of light) and the absorption line features in the background radiation which agrees with star formation. Although this is empirically confirmed, the true nature of this event may be very different from what we think – in the same way, that Newton's theory was empirically confirmed but has been surpassed by Einstein's theory [2].<br />
<br />
Scientists describe the Big Bang mathematically as a singularity – which merely means that we do not know what really happened. Empirical evidence supports the theory that our material space-time world had a beginning in time. Although there are various speculative mathematical theories about how the Big Bang happened, about all of these confirm that our material space-time world came into being after the Big Bang. Insofar as we engage with the question about what "really" happened at the beginning, this is beyond empirical access. We may have all sorts of speculative ideas about the origin of the cosmos – Christians believe that God created the world – but we can never prove any of that.<br />
<br />
This is the bottom line. The time when philosophers thought that only those things that can be proven should be allowed into serious discussion is long gone. We know that the largest part of our world is not empirically accessible and we can always only have theories about that. Now, this is the important point: we can test our best theories to determine if they are empirically confirmed. Although the metaphysics of worldviews goes beyond the metaphysics of science, we can do exactly the same. The metaphysical worldviews of Christians and atheists can be constructed as rational models which may be confirmed or rejected in the progress of science. This is, in fact, the scientific method and there is no other “objective” way to decide between such theories [3]. We can now delineate this approach in more detail.<br />
<br />
<b>The metaphysics of worldviews</b><br />
<br />
In this essay, I am primarily concerned with the Christian worldview (insofar as religion is concerned). The most important aspect of Immanuel Kant's work in this regard is that he developed an integrated rational position which is in accordance with the Christian worldview. In opposition to this stood the atheistic worldview which originated in Enlightenment thought. Both these metaphysical views are rationally consistent perspectives and none can as a whole be proven to be true for the simple reason that they are concerned with at least some entities that lay (or do not lay) beyond our experience and experiments. This does not mean that aspects of these metaphysical worldviews cannot over the course of time become accessible to scientific research. In fact, certain aspects did come within scientific range.<br />
<br />
Where did the Christian worldview originate? Christians believe that it originated from God's revelation in Scripture. As such they believe that their view is not built upon mere ideas that were taken out of thin air. Rather, it is in accordance with God's revelation of Himself through his Word and his Son to mankind. Although aspects of this worldview are not exclusive to Christians (like the belief in the spirit realm), we focus only on the Christian view in this essay.<br />
<br />
Where did the atheistic view originate? The basic point of departure for that view was that there is no God (a-theist). This means that atheists oppose the worldview through which a creator God, souls/spirits, moral law (free choice) etc. become possible. Since all of these stand outside the material cosmos studied by science and cannot on logical grounds in a systematic and consistent way be included in the atheistic view (without leaving at least some space for the idea of God), they were traditionally rejected by atheists. The atheistic view effectively originated from a scientism view which regards empirical science as the basic norm in constructing any metaphysical view of our world.<br />
<br />
Immanuel Kant presented the basic aspects of these opposing views in terms of opposing logical possibilities. In the fourth antinomy discussed in his famous Critique of Pure Reason, he sets the possibility of a necessary being (i.e. God) who brings forth contingent existences against the opposing view which rejects that. In the third antinomy in the same work, he sets the possibility of an intelligible cause (a cause that we can merely conceive of intellectually) that produce phenomenal effects against the opposing view which only allow for deterministic causes. The first position is consistent with a creator God who created our material world which came into being at the beginning of our cosmic history. The second position rejects the idea of such a God and thinks that everything always existed in the context of mechanistic causality.<br />
<br />
Kant's third antinomy was also important for another reason. It is not merely consistent with a first beginning of our universe; it also makes free choice possible. Without such absolute spontaneity – that is, when only deterministic causes exist – there cannot be any free choice. This means that God's requirement that humans follow the moral law only makes sense if humans have free choice – that is if such spontaneity exists in the cosmos. The traditional atheistic view rejected the possibility of free choice since through that the possibility of the moral law given by God as the requirement for human living is established.<br />
<br />
The problem for Kant's view was that such spontaneity is not logically possible in a mechanistic (that is, material) world. A world that consists only of matter that is connected mechanistically through deterministic causality can in no possible way supports absolute spontaneity. The only solution for Kant was to postulate the existence of another realm which is not in space and time and therefore not sensibly accessible in experience and experiment. Since this realm is not sensibly accessible, we as humans can only think about the existence of such a realm – which is why Kant called it the “noumenal realm”, derived from the Greek word for the mind (“nous”). The logical possibility of absolute spontaneity and human choice only arises when we postulate the existence of such a realm.<br />
<br />
This realm also makes it possible that non-extended wholes-and-parts (situated in this noumenal or supersensible realm as it is also called) may have a spontaneous potentiality to produce extended parts and aggregated wholes in the context of nature. This means that everything in nature is not necessarily produced through mechanistic causality! The first view excludes "creation" insofar as it is a random process; the second view is consistent with a creator God who included an unfolding design in the cosmos when he created it [4]. Kant presents these two opposing possibilities as part of his philosophy of science in the seventh antinomy in the Critique of the Power of Judgement.<br />
<br />
The interesting thing about the noumenal realm is that it was already introduced in philosophical conversation by the Greek philosopher Plato. Kant's contribution was to ascribe “freedom” to this realm. For human freedom (choice) to be possible, such a realm should not only exist; a part of humans should also be situated in that realm. Kant calls that the soul. If humans have souls – that is, noumenal selves – then they may be able to choose between good and evil in accordance with God's moral laws. In this way, the possibility of a creator God, of human freedom, of the soul and of the “noumenal realm” (the realm of the soul/spirit) are introduced as part of a consistent rational conception of the world. This is consistent with the Christian worldview and Kant effectively contrasted it with the prevailing atheistic view of that time which postulated exactly the opposite.<br />
<br />
Over the next century, the Kantian metaphysics was rejected by philosophers and scientists alike. In the modernist period atheists strongly believed that there is no God, that our material universe had no beginning, that absolute spontaneity does not exist, that humans have the mere illusion that they have free choice, that no supersensible realm exists and that there can, therefore, be no part of humans belonging to that realm (souls/spirits). The whole march of freedom on the political sphere which started with the French Revolution was seemingly merely one great collective illusion! (That is if we take the atheists really serious).<br />
<br />
<b>Scientific progress</b><br />
<br />
We all know that the world has changed a lot since the time of Kant. We can now go back to our million dollar question: which worldview has been consistently confirmed through science as correct insofar as that is possible to do that? Was that the Christian worldview or the atheistic one? One need not be a scientist or philosopher to see what has happened over the course of the last two centuries. Most of the things that Kant postulated have been accepted as part of our scientific worldview! And most of those things that atheists believed in were rejected by science – although I must admit that there are some who are still trying (struggling) to keep the pure deterministic worldview alive!<br />
<br />
The first thing regarding the Christian worldview in which Kant was right insofar as it is widely accepted by the scientific community today, is that our material world had a beginning. The scientific model which confirms that is the Big Bang model. Although there was originally an enormous amount of resistance from atheists within the scientific community against this theory due to its obvious metaphysical implications (which seems to be largely forgotten nowadays!), science has accepted it as part of its own.<br />
<br />
The second thing in which Kant was right, is that non-determinism (which we may understand as absolute spontaneity) has been empirically confirmed in science where we see its most dramatic confirmation is in the form of atomic decay - which atom will decay, or when, is completely indeterminate. Niels Bohr used the empirical evidence for quantum spontaneity to formulate his quantum postulate. This does not mean that some (atheistic) quantum theorists have not tried (and are still struggling) to present consistent interpretations of quantum theory that are merely deterministic. The problem is that, as Michael Redhead has shown, when the Aspect experiment confirmed the violation of the Bell inequality, it at the same time proved that all forms of determinism had broken down [5]. I think one can safely accept that most scientists today believe that indeterminism is a fact of our universe.<br />
<br />
The third thing in which Kant was correct is that there is another non-material part of our universe which exists within the context of our world - that is, Kant's "noumenal" or "supersensible" realm. Although Kant thought that this realm may never become empirically accessible, the decoupling of space and time in quantum mechanics has allowed scientists to at least indirectly confirm the existence of such a realm which is nowadays called the quantum realm (see part 1). Not only is the quantum realm indeed outside our space-time as Kant postulated, it also behaves in a manner that is totally different from our classical world as described by all mechanistic theories (like general relativity). And it is exactly in the context of this realm that indeterminism/spontaneity is observed - exactly as Kant proposed.<br />
<br />
What we find is that the basic features of the Kantian rational position that agrees with the Christian worldview have been accepted in science. On all these points the Christian worldview may be regarded as correct whereas the atheistic view held by the pioneers of that position is generally rejected. I would even go further than this. I would suggest that even the one great showpiece of atheism, namely the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution which is a purely mechanistic theory, is under threat in this regard. Some leaders in the new academic discipline of quantum biology have recently proposed that even genetic mutation may be due to non-mechanistic factors [6]. The incorporation of quantum mechanics in biology immediately implies a role for indeterminism/spontaneity and the kind of design that Kant postulated [4].<br />
<br />
This is not the only remaining atheistic pillar of faith that is challenged by contemporary science. In the theoretical reconstructions regarding "dark" matter, we find that scientists propose that such matter is not confined to the high end of the energy spectrum - they now accept that there may be dark entities (like atoms etc.) that occupy even our human bodies [7]. This means that humans may have a dark "body" which corresponds with their fleshly body. In this regard, it seems to me that even the existence of the Kantian soul which exists as a noumenal self may in time be scientifically confirmed!<br />
<br />
<b>A new argument for the existence of God</b><br />
<br />
How did atheists react to the rejection of their traditional position? Some merely adapted and took the scientific position as their own - even though it does not fit consistently into one comprehensive rational atheistic position. Others have adopted theoretical positions that are consistent with the atheistic view - for example, certain speculative theoretical interpretations about how the Big Bang happened which exclude the possibility of a creator God. These atheists are indeed able to save their position - but their solution cannot be confirmed or denied (i.e. that this was what happened) since it is beyond empirical reach!<br />
<br />
Now, Christians also cannot prove that God created the cosmos for the same reason. As such it is of no use to argue about things that lay beyond empirical confirmation. We should rather stay within the confines of the scientific method - we should test the metaphysical positions as theories against empirical evidence in the context of the progress of science. When we consider the Christian and atheistic positions in historical context, it is clear that the currently accepted scientific position that the material space-time universe had a beginning in time, is in conflict with the original atheistic position in this regard. Such is the clear evidence that the cosmos includes aspects where determinism breaks down and that the quantum realm is a supersensible realm. If atheists are honest about their worldview within a historical context, they would at least admit that science has been much more in line with the Christian position than the atheistic one!<br />
<br />
Atheists often say that they are mere atheists in the sense of not believing in God. As such they then adopt the ever-changing scientism position - often saying that their position is not a metaphysical position at all! They are merely taking the science position! The problem is - as I have already mentioned - that insofar as this approach allows them to make claims that go far beyond the domain of science this is just another metaphysical position. This metaphysical position, however, has certain disadvantages when compared with a fully-developed rationally-coherent atheistic position that can be tested over time. This position is per definition unfalsifiable! It can never be presented as a true metaphysical position that can be subjected to scientific scrutiny - it merely changes its colours with the progress of science. And there are always all sorts of "teapot-in-the-gap" theories available to support their "position". Russell's heirs do not seem to share his concerns in this regard.<br />
<br />
Some atheists and agnostics may be described as "soft" in the sense that they are inclined to take that position on other grounds. In some way the popular narratives that are propagated by the mass media which often involve a strong anti-Christian bias appeal to them. These may include the false but popular claims that the Bible is an untrustworthy source of information. I discuss such positions elsewhere for those readers who are open to carefully consider them [8].<br />
<br />
Although God's existence cannot be proven, I present a theoretical model (the Kantian model) which takes God's existence as the point of departure. This model is well-delineated with particular predictions and as such it is falsifiable. In modernist times it was believed to be false - but since then three of its basic predictions which have all been considered highly improbable (even impossible) at the time, have been confirmed, namely that our space-time universe had a beginning, the occurrence of indeterminism (absolute spontaneity) in quantum physics and the existence of a supersensible realm (the quantum realm). Two other predictions may be confirmed over the next few decades (an unfolding design in the cosmos and the existence of the human soul). On no single point have this metaphysical position been shown to be wrong!<br />
<br />
We can compare this theoretical (metaphysics) model with the Big Bang model. Although the Big Bang model is a mathematical model and the Kantian metaphysical model a mere rational model, both make clear testable predictions. In the same manner that the singularity of the Big Bang is forever outside empirical reach, God is forever outside such reach. In the same way that scientists accept the empirical evidence for the (unprovable) Big Bang as a good reason to think that it happened, we may accept the empirical evidence for God's existence. I can see no substantial difference between the two approaches.<br />
<br />
In the final instance, it is, in fact, amazing that the Christian worldview was arrived at not via science but through divine revelation! This means that insofar as metaphysical truth is concerned – that is, which concerns the totality of our human existence – divine revelation is a better guide than science when tested with the only “objective” scientific measure available to us as humans, namely the scientific method.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
We are long past the point where philosophers think in terms of "proof" when it comes to metaphysical issues. Only those who are uninformed would today take such positions. Our world is just too complex for that. What we have instead are various metaphysical positions which may be tested in the framework of the progress of science to see whether they have withstood the test of time. I am afraid that we must concur that the atheistic position has been a total failure in this regard. When we take it as a theory that is submitted to empirical testing, it has been spectacularly unsuccessful.<br />
<br />
So, why are atheists unmoved by this? One reason is that their position has been constantly shifting - just like a chameleon. The new generation is not aware that the current scientific position is much more in line with the Christian worldview - and I predict that this trend of confirming the Christian position will continue in future - than the atheistic one from two hundred years ago. Since such historical considerations are about the only "objective" way in which we can test such metaphysical views, I recommend that atheists reconsider their "teapot-in-the-gap" approach of always calling upon unfalsifiable theories to counter the Christian position and accept that science has not been on their side in this conversation.<br />
<br />
In contrast, I presented a new argument for the existence of God which shows close agreement with the scientific approach through which the Big Bang is accepted. Not only is the Kantian model falsifiable, it has in fact been confirmed - insofar as it has become possible - against great odds in the progress of science. If one believes in the Big Bang, one should seriously consider believing in God too.<br />
<br />
[1] There are Christian viewpoints which do not accept the idea of free will. Our concern is not here which such theological issues.<br />
[2] We may say that a theory is "empirically confirmed" insofar as we are able to confirm its predictions within the scope of empirical science. But that does not mean that we know what the world is "really" like! Aspects of the theory might be forever outside empirical reach. As such we may compliment "empirically confirmed" with "good reason to think".<br />
[3] The scientific method is “objective” insofar as it enables us to test whether theories are empirically confirmed in the framework of certain parameters.<br />
[4] I plan to discuss this in more detail in this series<br />
For a technical discussion see Mc Loud, W. 2015. Introducing a Kantian Interpretation of Quantum Physics, in accordance with Kant's Philosophy of Science in the Critique of the Power of Judgment, reinterpreted and reworked with special attention to the supersensible realm. Masters thesis. UCT. Cape Town.<br />
Also by W Mc Loud: <a href="https://www.academia.edu/38283361/Kant_Noumena_and_Quantum_Physics" target="_blank">Kant, Noumena and Quantum Physics</a> published in Contemporary Studies in Kantian Philosophy 3 (2018)<br />
[5] Redhead, M. 1987. Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism. A prolegomenon to the philosophy of quantum mechanics. Oxford: Clarendon<br />
[6] Al-Khalili, J & McFadden, J. 2014. Life on the Edge, The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology. London: Bantam Press.<br />
[7] See, for example, http://www.space.com/21508-dark-matter-atoms-disks.html.<br />
[8] <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2014/04/part-1-can-we-still-believe-bible.html">Can we still believe the Bible? A hermeneutical perspective </a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/03/part-2-can-we-still-believe-bible.html">Can we still believe the Bible? An archaeological perspective</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/04/part-3-can-we-still-believe-bible.html">Can we still believe the Bible? A scientific perspective</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/05/part-4-can-we-still-believe-bible.html">Can we still believe the Bible? A prophetic perspective</a><br />
<a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/08/die-probleem-met-goddelike-wreedheid-in.html">Die probleem met Goddelike wreedheid in die Ou Testament</a><br />
<br />
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)<br />
<br />
The author is a scientist-philosopher (PhD in Physics, MA in Philosophy) and has written a book on the Sumerian roots of the Bible (Abraham en sy God (Griffel, 2012)). He writes on issues of religion, philosophy, science and eschatology.<br />
<br />
Science and God. Part 1: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2015/11/the-problem-of-spontaneity-in-quantum.html">The problem of spontaneity in quantum mechanics</a><br />
Science and God. Part 2: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/03/science-and-our-restricted-human.html">Science and our restricted human understanding</a><br />
Science and God. Part 4: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2016/11/science-and-spiritual-realm.html">Science and the spiritual realm</a><br />
Science and God, Part 5: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.co.za/2017/03/in-defense-of-soul.html">In defense of the soul</a><br />
Science and God. Part 6: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/06/science-and-atheism.html">Science and Atheism</a> <br />
Science and God. Part 7: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-rapture-different-views.html">Science and spiritual intuition</a><br />
Science and God. Part 8: <a href="http://wmcloud.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-christian-and-evolution.html">The Christian and Evolution</a><br />
<br />
Readers are welcome to forward this essay to their atheist, agnostic and Christian friends</div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1142902974920945928.post-42873717758714235452016-07-04T02:30:00.005-07:002018-07-05T03:19:44.006-07:00Brexit: What to expect<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>The outcome of the Brexit referendum may be one of the most important geopolitical events of the early twenty-first century. Some think that the EU would be dissolved by similar referendums elsewhere; others think that Britain would be dissolved when Scotland (and even Northern Ireland) decides to leave. In this essay, I discuss the long-term impact of Brexit on both the EU and Britain itself. </i>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The rest of the world was quite surprised when Britain voted on 23 June 2016 with a 52/48% margin to leave the European Union of which it was a member since 1973. Financial markets reacted with alarm: the British sterling fell to a 31 year low against the dollar and stock markets lost 2 trillion dollars on 24 June – the biggest one-day loss on record (it lost 3 trillion dollars in total). Shortly afterwards various credit rating agencies downgraded Britain's sovereign credit score. David Cameron, the prime minister, resigned and said that he would leave it to his successor to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which would start the process of Britain leaving the EU.</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There can be no doubt that Brexit would have a far-reaching impact on both Britain and the EU. If Britain leaves the EU, its economy may be severely affected by such a move. It is especially the power of the City of London – the leading financial centre in the world – that may be diminished. And if Scotland leaves, Great Britain may be reduced to Little England. Some commentators think that Brexit would also have a domino effect which may lead to the undoing of the EU. This is unlikely to happen. In fact, the EU would most probably be in a much stronger position after Britain has left! We might even see that the EU and the US start drifting apart over the next few decades. This may be the most important outcome of Brexit.</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Geopolitical trembles</b></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Why is Brexit such a great deal? It is because of the geopolitical significance of Britain's place in the EU. Over the past few decades, Britain served the Anglo-American establishment's interest in the EU (also nowadays called "Atlanticist"). Since the Anglo-American establishment fears that the EU would rise to become an independent player on the world-stage, they tried their best to control the process of EU integration. They fear that the EU would develop in accordance with the Gaullist vision for Europe, named after President Charles de Gaulle of France, who vetoed British membership when that country originally applied to join the club. In recent times that vision was represented by French president Jacques Chirac (1995-2007) who resisted the George W Bush administration's ideas for the Middle East (and who became a hated figure in the Anglo-American press).</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In the context of geopolitics, Britain anchors the EU within the Anglo-American world. As such Britain played two very important roles since it joined the European project, namely to represent the Anglo-American interests in the EU and to keep the process of EU integration within acceptable parameters. Originally Britain held (with the other EU countries) veto powers over a wide spectrum of EU matters. These were phased out within the context of a compromise between the Anglo-American and Continental (Gaullist) factions in the EU according to which every significant step in "deepening" the project through further integration was be complimented with a corresponding "widening" of the European project (which provided the Anglo-Americans with a larger market). During the first decade of the twenty-first century we, for example, saw a significant enlargement (in 2004 ten new countries joined) as well as a significant increase in political integration (with the Lisbon Treaty of 2007).</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The effectiveness of Britain's power to block EU integration has, however, waned over the last few years since she lost her veto right in many areas. As such Britain was outvoted in 2012 when she tried to stop the Fiscal Compact as well in 2014 when she tried to stop the leader of the winning party in the EU elections (Jean-Claude Juncker) from becoming president of the EU commission (which was effectively a devolution of power from the EU Council to the EU parliament). Britain was also unable to block the financial transactions tax in court that 10 EU countries want to install (which has not yet been finalized). The main reason for Britain's setbacks in all these areas is that many other EU countries regard Britain as obstructionist. And the EU treaties – especially the principle of "enhanced cooperation" – allows groups of countries to establish advanced integration or cooperation within EU structures without the other members being involved.</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The EU has now come to the point where there is a strong impulse to proceed with further integration in the context of so-called "economic governance". This basically means that some Eurozone countries want to proceed with further economic integration – they even envision a Eurozone finance ministry with its own budget. Britain is afraid that the Eurozone countries would introduce rules and regulations which would be enforceable in the City of London. In an effort to differentiate Britain within the EU, David Cameron concluded a "special status" agreement with the 27 other EU countries in February 2016 on which the British people voted in the 23 June referendum.</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Although the agreement between Britain and the EU (now discarded) included various aspects of which the provisions regarding migrants and welfare benefits were especially accentuated, its most important feature was that it presented a framework to regulate all financial transactions in a fair manner. Both Britain and the other EU countries are afraid that the other would gain some undue advantage over her/them. The agreement states in this regard that a "<span style="font-style: normal;">single rulebook is to be applied by all credit institutions and other financial institutions in order to ensure the level playing field within the internal market". </span><span style="font-style: normal;">But even in this context, the City of London would have had a large influence over the process of EU economic integration </span><span style="font-style: normal;">due to </span><span style="font-style: normal;">its more </span><span style="font-style: normal;">favourable regulatory environment</span><span style="font-style: normal;">.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">I</span><span style="font-style: normal;">f Brexit leads to Britain leaving the EU </span><span style="font-style: normal;">(which is not yet a foregone conclusion)</span><span style="font-style: normal;">, then the Anglo-American establishment </span><span style="font-style: normal;">may eventually lose control o</span><span style="font-style: normal;">ver</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> the process of EU integration. This would in the first instance involve economic integration – although the relevant EU countries (especially Germany and France) would probably wait until the period of "reflection" </span><span style="font-style: normal;">after the British referendum </span><span style="font-style: normal;">is over before commencing with a process of deepening "economic governance" of the Eurozone. The German chancellor Angela Merkel is especially concerned that too much talk of further integration at this stage would play into Euroskeptics' hands. After Brexit the EU would also be able to establish an </span><span style="font-style: normal;">EU army – something over with Britain still has a veto right.</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span><span style="font-style: normal;">With Britain out of the EU, a core of EU countries would be able to pursue their vision of an "ever closer union" which </span><span style="font-style: normal;">c</span><span style="font-style: normal;">ould make the EU a very powerful economic and military player.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">T</span><span style="font-style: normal;">he Anglo-American and Continental factions in the EU have different visions as to what the EU should eventually look like. The Anglo-Americans want the EU to consist of various overlapping "clubs" whereas the Continentals want it to develop a multi-speed approach according to which a core of EU (Eurozone) countries would be allowed to proceed with further integration. The Eurozone </span><span style="font-style: normal;">and</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> S</span><span style="font-style: normal;">chengen (a shared EU visa) areas may be regarded as such "clubs" in the framework of the EU. If the Continentals get their way, these would be further strengthened in such a manner that an EU "core" is formed through further economic and political integration - which would stand in contrast with those EU countries which stay in the slower lane. Brexit would in time provide a strong impulse to realize the second vision.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">The Anglo-Americans would do all in their power to bind the EU within their geopolitical sphere even when Britain has left the EU. As such they would try to bring the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to fruition. Although this agreement seems to establish merely a common economic zone, the leaders of these countries also view it in geopolitical terms – as integrating the economic interests of the USA and the EU. We can also expect that the EU's military capabilities would be integrated into the context of NATO – already during the next NATO summit. The question is whether these arrangements would be sufficient to keep US and EU interests aligned. </span>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-style: normal;">The EU would disintegrate?</span></b></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">There are two </span><span style="font-style: normal;">kinds</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> of EU countries which stand to lose a lot when Britain leaves the EU. The first </span><span style="font-style: normal;">are those countries who share Britain's "Anglo-Saxon" approach to financial and economic matters. These include the Netherlands and Denmark. These countries traditionally relied on Britain to lead the pact of free marketeers in the EU (especially regarding financial services). There have been suggestions that some of these and other countries may also hold referendums and leave with Britain. </span>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">Whether or not more countries join Britain in leaving the EU (if it comes to that) would be determined by the divorce-deal that Britain would be able to negotiate with the EU. At this stage the EU holds the best cards – they have the much sought after market of about 500 million people. The challenge for the EU is to give Britain a fair deal (to not destabilize Britain's friends in the EU) but at the same time to discourage other countries </span><span style="font-style: normal;">from </span><span style="font-style: normal;">f</span><span style="font-style: normal;">ollowing </span><span style="font-style: normal;">Britain's lead. </span><span style="font-style: normal;">The strict terms that the EU leaders have set for the divorce – no informal negotiations before Article 50 is triggered and no exemptions from the four basic principles of the free trade zone (free movement of workers, capital, goods and services) </span><span style="font-style: normal;">are</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> intended to discourage others from doing the same. </span><span style="font-style: normal;">Although an eventual deal might see some leniency in some of these areas, the EU would </span><span style="font-style: normal;">not agree to a deal that would lead to its own destruction.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">T</span><span style="font-style: normal;">he other country that would find itself in a weaker position when Britain leaves the EU is Germany. Since Germany is an export country, and many of its cars (for example) are sold on the British market, she would work to not upset this arrangement. Germany also needs Britain to offset the French initiative in the EU </span><span style="font-style: normal;">(the French are openly hostile to the "Anglo-Saxon" model and would like to see more lenient fiscal policies in the EU</span>)<span style="font-style: normal;">. Although Germany and France have traditionally been regarded as the engine which drives the process of EU integration, Germany is not always at ease with the French ideas in this regard and Britain – </span><span style="font-style: normal;">as the second largest economy – </span><span style="font-style: normal;">often brought the balance. With Britain out of the EU, we may expect to see more of the trio Germany-France-Italy in action which means </span><span style="font-style: normal;">a</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> much stronger role for the southern EU states and their particular approach (for example, in opposing the German idea of austerity).</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">There is, however, another even more important way in which Germany would be affected by Brexit. With Britain out of the EU, the power of Germany with regard to the other EU countries would become an issue of major concern. Various southern EU countries</span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-style: normal;"> (especially the Greeks)</span> already view the Germans as the strict and uncompromising masters of the EU who force their view on them. </span>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">The new situation that Germany would find itself in would be similar to </span><span style="font-style: normal;">the period directly after the reunification of Germany in 1990 when there were fears that the new Germany would be too strong for the EU – which led to the Maastrich</span><span style="font-style: normal;">t</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> Treaty </span><span style="font-style: normal;">that</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span><span style="font-style: normal;">created the European Union in 1993 and to the creation of the euro.</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span><span style="font-style: normal;">The argument then was that </span><span style="font-style: normal;">a strong Germany </span><span style="font-style: normal;">necessitates </span><span style="font-style: normal;">a strong EU. </span><span style="font-style: normal;">One can expect (in the case of Brexit) that the same argument would be heard again in the not too distant future – which would pressure Germany to accept the French proposals for "economic governance" which may involve shared liability in some areas. This would be an important step towards the EU </span><span style="font-style: normal;">eventually </span><span style="font-style: normal;">becoming some sort of </span><span style="font-style: normal;">United States of </span><span style="font-style: normal;">Europe.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-style: normal;">W</span><span style="font-style: normal;">hat about Britain?</span></b></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">Although it is possible that Britain might come out of Brexit as a stronger country, the odds are greatly against this happening. There are </span><span style="font-style: normal;">just too</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> many things that can go wrong over which the British government ha</span><span style="font-style: normal;">s</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> very little control. Some of these concern the City of London and others the geographical </span><span style="font-style: normal;">integrity</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> of Great Britain. </span>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">The economic welfare of Great Britain is closely connected to that of the City of London which has grown over the last decade into the </span><span style="font-style: normal;">leading</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> financial centre </span><span style="font-style: normal;">of</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> the world. </span><span style="font-style: normal;">The City has a GDP of about 17 % of that of Britain, which is larger than that of several EU countries! </span><span style="font-style: normal;">An important part of the City's wealth </span><span style="font-style: normal;">is </span><span style="font-style: normal;">in turn dependent on its access to the EU market – especially regarding financial services. </span><span style="font-style: normal;">As such it has what is called "financial passport" rights which made it the best place from where to sell financial services throughout the EU. Brexit may change this.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">There are various conflicting opinions as to whether the City would be better or worse off outside the EU. A major concern is whether the City would be allowed to keep its financial passport rights after Brexit. If this access to the EU market is lost, it may have a significant impact on the City's long-term future as </span><span style="font-style: normal;">a major </span><span style="font-style: normal;">financial centre. Although the financial culture in the City is both specialized and global in a manner that cannot at this stage be equalled by other EU centres such as Frankfurt or Paris, future EU regulation may impact on the City in ways that are </span><span style="font-style: normal;">not </span><span style="font-style: normal;">conceivable at the moment. The French might not be willing to extend its offer of a "</span><span style="font-style: normal;">level playing field" to Britain during the divorce negotiations.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">Ano</span><span style="font-style: normal;">ther area of concern is whether Scotland would stay a part of Great Britain </span><span style="font-style: normal;">after Brexit</span><span style="font-style: normal;">. Both Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar voted in the Brexit referendum in favour of staying in the EU. The Scottish </span><span style="font-style: normal;">First Minister Nicola Sturgeon </span><span style="font-style: normal;">has proposed that parts of Britain – which would include Scotland and maybe </span><span style="font-style: normal;">Gibraltar and </span><span style="font-style: normal;">Northern Ireland – stay part of the EU even when the rest of Britain leaves. There is a president for this – whereas Denmark is part of the EU, Greenland, which is an autonomous part thereof, is not. For Scotland to stay part of the EU after the rest of Britain leaves, it would have to negotiate its own </span><span style="font-style: normal;">special status </span><span style="font-style: normal;">agreement with the EU </span><span style="font-style: normal;">to retain its current EU benefits and obligations </span><span style="font-style: normal;">while the rest of Britain negotiates its departure. Since the Scottish parliament may have to agree to a Brexit, the Scots may have some leverage in this regard.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">T</span><span style="font-style: normal;">he reason why Sturgeon takes this option instead of </span><span style="font-style: normal;">merely </span><span style="font-style: normal;">going for full independence from the rest Britain is that once Scotland is outside Britain (and the EU) it would be very difficult to get back into the EU. Spain would most probably veto an independent Scotland's joining the EU since it fears that Catalonia would do the same. If Scotland stays part of the EU after the rest of Britain has left, it can always become independent without endangering its place in the EU. </span><span style="font-style: normal;">W</span><span style="font-style: normal;">e might, therefore, find that Scotland leaves Britain - and she might not be alone. There is also renewed talk of the reunification of Ireland. Such developments would significantly reduce </span><span style="font-style: normal;">Britain's</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> stature in the world. One do</span><span style="font-style: normal;">es</span><span style="font-style: normal;"> not know what Britain (Little Britain or even Little England) would do with its nuclear </span><span style="font-style: normal;">submarine </span><span style="font-style: normal;">fleet stationed in Scotland.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">In the final instance, it seems that Brexit might result in the City of London losing its financial EU passport rights and in Britain losing Scotland. In the end, this might leave Britain a much-diminished country – maybe somewhat like Venice who was once a major financial centre in Europe.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-style: normal;">Conclusion</span></b></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">Although there are many commentators who think that the EU would become weak and disorientated after a Brexit, I am not one of them. In my view, the EU would become stronger. In time, it would become much stronger! The EU would not disintegrate. Instead, we might expect over the next few years that the EU would proceed with its program for stronger economic governance and stronger military cooperation. If the EU leaves Britain behind, it would proceed not only to form a political union; it would become one of the most powerful players on the world scene. </span>
</div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">We might expect some surprises in the Brexit game. A large part of the Anglo-American establishment was caught by surprise by the Brexit vote. Since it has such far-reaching implications, they might even try to turn the wheel backwards and keep Britain in the EU. There is already a lawsuit filed which would require that the British parliament agrees to Brexit. Some </span><span style="font-style: normal;">EU </span><span style="font-style: normal;">countries like Germany would </span><span style="font-style: normal;">also </span><span style="font-style: normal;">prefer </span><span style="font-style: normal;">that </span><span style="font-style: normal;">Britain stays in the EU. </span><span style="font-style: normal;">The Continentals would, however, rejoice. They would try to block all such efforts. They have an opportunity to place the City forever behind in their efforts to build a great United States of Europe. Coming events in Britain and the outcome of the negotiations with the EU would show how successful they were in this regard.</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)</span></div>
<div lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"> </span>
</div>
Willie Mc Loudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05593686244359522234noreply@blogger.com0