Sunspots 192

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science:
The Vatican is honoring Galileo as a pioneer of integrating faith and reason, according to the Associated Press.

From He Lives: "As an honest science evolution is no threat to Christianity. A study of creation is always honoring rather than disparaging of the creator."

Christianity:
From Christianity Today: A fine article on humility.

Henry Neufeld on interpreting scripture. (It's generally not easy!)

Image source (public domain)

More on torture

I don't like to think about torture, and I don't want anyone torturing me, but I believe that I have a responsibility, as a Christian citizen, to be concerned about the use of torture.

Some people believe that fighting terrorism justifies the use of torture, and that torture is an effective means of obtaining information.

A report from the Senate Armed Services Committee, dated December 12 of this year, disagrees with both of those assertions.

It begins by quoting General Petraeus: “What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight… is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings”

The report includes this statement, too:
Conclusion 3: The use of techniques similar to those used in SERE resistance training – such as stripping students of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, and treating them like animals – was at odds with the commitment to humane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. Using those techniques for interrogating detainees was also inconsistent with the goal of collecting accurate intelligence information, as the purpose of SERE resistance training is to increase the ability of U.S. personnel to resist abusive interrogations and the techniques used were based, in part, on Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to elicit false confessions. (emphasis added. SERE is an acronym for Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape training.)

According to this unanimous bipartisan* report, the US did use torture on prisoners, and this was encouraged by then Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and other high government officials. Some techniques used were not done so legally, although there were attempts to justify their use. (And also to deny such use.)
*According to news reports, such as one in the Salt Lake Tribune, Dec. 22, 2008, the report was bipartisan and unanimous.

Some of the techniques used by the US military, then, led to:
1) diminution of the moral status of the US in the eyes of the world
2) implicit approval of the use of torture of captured US personnel by other countries
3) no more reliable information than we would have gotten without such use

Unfortunate, and regrettable.

J. K. Rowling's Tales of Beedle the Bard

The Tales of Beedle the Bard is a collection of five short fables, supposedly part of the children's literature of the wizards created by J. K. Rowling. These fables have lessons. The lessons are: don't be greedy; don't think of yourself as superior, even to people who don't have your abilities; magic cannot undo death.

Each tale is followed by a commentary by Albus Dumbledore, one-time Headmaster of Hogwarts. These commentaries are roughly as long as the tales themselves, and as interesting.

I suppose that this brief book would be a good introduction to Rowling's sub-creation, but doubt if many who haven't already read the Harry Potter books will read it.

The book was published in 2008. It was published partly as a way to raise money for some charities that are important to Rowling.

Thanks for reading.

Hosea on Ephraim

Hosea was one of the so-called minor prophets, known for being directed (by God) to marry a prostitute, and then redeem her from slavery, or some other terrible relationship, when she left him. Hosea said that this was God's extremely graphic way of illustrating how the children of Israel had pursued other gods, and he had bought them back. I guess it can also be taken as New Testament prophecy -- I, too, have sought other gods, and God Himself has redeemed me, with His own blood.

Ephraim was one of Joseph's sons, and Jacob's grandsons. (See Genesis 41 -- all scripture references and quotations from the ESV.) He was the younger son, but Jacob gave him a more important blessing than he gave Ephraim's older brother, Manasseh. Levi, the tribe which included the priests, was not considered to be one of the twelve tribes of Israel, when, for example, the soldiers were counted. Ephraim and Manasseh were each considered to be a tribe, along with the descendants of ten sons of Jacob.

Samuel, the judge who reluctantly began the kingship rule of the Israelites, was apparently from the tribe of Ephraim. When Solomon's son, Rehoboam, continued leading the kingdom in the wrong direction that Solomon had pursued in his later years, Jeroboam, a member of the tribe of Ephraim, led the rebellion which caused a split into two kingdoms.

In Isaiah 7, the prophet seems to be using the term, Ephraim, to represent the entire Northern Kingdom. That seems also to be true in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 37. This is continued in the prophecy of Hosea.

Hosea uses Ephraim over 30 times. He is very graphic and descriptive. Ephraim, the Northern Kingdom, has been worshiping idols -- committing adultery with foreign gods (for example in 5:3). Hosea's first use of the word is poignant:
4:17 Ephraim is joined to idols;
leave him alone.

God describes His despair at Ephraim (and with the Southern Kingdom, too):
6:4 What shall I do with you, O Ephraim?
What shall I do with you, O Judah?
Your love is like a morning cloud,
like the dew that goes early away.

And then God describes how He will punish Ephraim. He will be like a moth, eating at the clothes, and a lion, in chapter 5.

In Chapter 7, Ephraim is a silly dove, flying here and there without sense; a neglected cake, not turned over when it should have been; a wandering wild donkey.

Then, although they are sprinkled with admonitions, in the last chapters of his book, Hosea says that God is finally going to rescue Ephraim. That doesn't seem to have happened yet. It didn't happen in Hosea's time. I am grateful that God didn't give up on me!

Thanks for reading.

Lloyd Alexander interviewed

Q: Why do you write fantasy?
A: Because, paradoxically, fantasy is a good way to show the world as it is. Fantasy can show us the truth about human relationships and moral dilemmas because it works on our emotions on a deeper, symbolic level than realistic fiction. - Lloyd Alexander, author of the Prydain books, and many other works of fantastic fiction, mainly for young people, being interviewed by Leonard S. Marcus, in Marcus's The Wand in the Wind: Conversations with Writers of Fantasy. (Cambridge, MA: Candlewick Press, 2006) Interview is on pages 5-17. Quote is from page 13. Alexander died in 2007. He won the Newbery award, and the National Book Award.

I also learned, from this interview, that Alexander, born in Philadelphia, saw Wales during duty in World War II, and that this influenced his work on the Prydain books. Additionally, he told Marcus that he deliberately tried to write something different from these five books, rather than something like them.

Thanks for reading. Read Alexander.

P. S. Happy Birthday, Lewis Carroll!

Announcing a great new device for next Christmas

In case you haven't heard, there's a device that might be useful for gardeners. You can stick it in the ground for 24 hours, then plug it into your computer's USB port. You get readings on various soil parameters.

OK. Here's my announcement. I'm establishing priority on patents, licensing, etc., for a USB DNA sequencer. Useful for crime scenes, of course, but why stop there? Just stick it into some sort of biological mess (such as at restaurants or opened cans) that you want to analyze, and plug it into your USB port, and you get a read-out on how much rat is in the soup. You can also rub people's skin, and, then, after plugging in, have an analysis as to how closely they are related to you. Surely you can think of other uses.

That's the concept. I'm not giving away any technical details in this public forum, of course.

Any venture capitalists out there who want to get in on the ground floor of a great investment, please comment on this blog, giving contact information.

Thanks!

Biblical references to light

Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.(All quotations from the English Standard Version of the Bible.)

Exodus 13:21 And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night. 22 The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night did not depart from before the people.

Job 24:13 “There are those who rebel against the light,
who are not acquainted with its ways,and do not stay in its paths.
14 The murderer rises before it is light,
that he may kill the poor and needy,
and in the night he is like a thief.
15 The eye of the adulterer also waits for the twilight,
saying, ‘No eye will see me’;
and he veils his face.
16 In the dark they dig through houses;
by day they shut themselves up;
they do not know the light.

Psalm 27:1 The Lord is my light and my salvation;
whom shall I fear?
The Lord is the stronghold of my life;
of whom shall I be afraid?

Psalm 104:1 Bless the Lord, O my soul!
O Lord my God, you are very great!
You are clothed with splendor and majesty,
2 covering yourself with light as with a garment,
stretching out the heavens like a tent.

Psalm 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet
and a light to my path.

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!

Isaiah 30:26 Moreover, the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day when the Lord binds up the brokenness of his people, and heals the wounds inflicted by his blow.

Isaiah 45:5 I am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7 I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the Lord, who does all these things.

Isaiah 60:19 The sun shall be no more
your light by day,
nor for brightness shall the moon
give you light;
but the Lord will be your everlasting light,
and your God will be your glory.
20 Your sun shall no more go down,
nor your moon withdraw itself;
for the Lord will be your everlasting light,
and your days of mourning shall be ended.

Ezekiel 32:1 In the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, raise a lamentation over Pharaoh king of Egypt and say to him:
7 When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens
and make their stars dark;
I will cover the sun with a cloud,
and the moon shall not give its light.
8 All the bright lights of heaven
will I make dark over you,
and put darkness on your land,
declares the Lord God.

Matthew 5:14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

John 8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Acts 12:7 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood next to him, and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him, saying, “Get up quickly.” And the chains fell off his hands.

Acts 13:46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,
“‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”

Acts 22:6 “As I was on my way and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me. 7 And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ 8 And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ 9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. 10 And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’ 11 And since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus.

1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

2 Corinthians 4:2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Ephesians 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), 10 and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. 13 But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, 14a for anything that becomes visible is light.

1 Timothy 6:13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, 14 to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, 25 and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there. 26 They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. 27 But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

There are a few hundred uses of the word, "light" in the Bible. There are a few of them above.

Be enlightened!

* * * *

December 24, 2008: I'm a bit embarrassed to discover that I'd already done a post much like this, but, having nothing better planned to post tomorrow, I'll let them both stand. I found this out because a Google alert pointed me to an editorial in a Canadian on-line newspaper, the Orangeville Citizen, which used my previous post extensively (and gave credit!). To God's Son be all the glory. Thanks for reading.

Science and the Bible

Some Christians reject science, in general, as anti-God. Although the charge is not without some foundation, it is an oversimplification, at best, and short-sighted and unbiblical.
Why an oversimplification? Because many important scientists, from, say, Copernicus through Francis Collins, head of the US human genome project, have been believers.

Why short-sighted? Because rejecting scientific findings unnecessarily alienates potential followers of Christ. "If they are so wrong about the science, why should they be right about salvation?"

Why unbiblical? Because God reveals Himself in more than one way, according to the Bible itself. Psalm 19:1-4 tells us that God is revealed through nature, which means that scientific findings can tell us something of God's nature and power. Romans 1 says: "20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (ESV, which version allows quotation for uses such as this, if properly cited.) Does that mean that scientists are always right? Of course not. There was a time, in the previous century, when the scientific consensus was that genes were made of protein, not DNA. That was wrong. Scientists have made other mistakes, and will continue to make some. But that doesn't mean that consensus science should be rejected out of hand. It's usually right, and its findings are part of God's revelation to us. Mistakes have been made, and will be made, in the interpretation of the Bible, too. That doesn't mean that we should ignore it. The Bible is always right, and our understanding of it usually is.

If both are properly understood, there should be no conflict between the Bible and scientific findings. (I realize that our understanding of both is imperfect, at best.)

This is the fourth anniversary of this blog. Thanks for reading!

*  *  *  *  *

Note added, January 26, 2012: Acts 14 also indicates that God has revealed Himself through nature:
14 But when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of it, they tore their clothes, and sprang into the multitude, crying out, 15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to the living God, who made the sky and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them; 16 who in the generations gone by allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Yet he didn’t leave himself without witness, in that he did good and gave you rains from the sky and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.”(World English Bible, public domain)

Sunspots 191

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science:
(also Art ) An amazing 15-second video of melting colored ice cubes.

Wired reports that waves in the Pacific Northwest are getting bigger. No one seems to know why.

Politics:
The Americal Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has received a lot of flak from many Christians. However, here's a post by a person from the organization, defending the organization's record on defending Christianity. The comments are interesting, and are all over the map.

Image source (public domain)

Some of my Bible study posts: Four years of blogging

This week, God willing, is my fourth blogiversary. In this post, I am linking to some of my most important Bible study posts from that period. These are typically more Bible than anything else, often giving a number of Bible verses on a particular topic.

I believe that Prayer in the New Testament is the most important of these.

There have been some posts related to plants. These include:
Trees in the Bible

Pomegranates in the Bible

Figs in the Bible

Other posts:
Christ as the light

What the Bible says about light

The sea as a symbol of evil

Baskets in the Bible

The word, "hymn" in the Bible

People, especially Lazarus, who were raised to life

Cases where people married, or at least had children by, their relatives

Salt as used in the Old Testament offerings

Play in the Bible

Grace in the Bible

On false witness and lying

Abishag, a woman in the Old Testament

What the Bible says about tattoos

Some thoughts on music in worship

Thanks for reading any or all of these posts, and this one!

We don't have time for eternity

. . .the mismatch between our modern lives and ancient brains is most evident in the problems of working memory and attention, but another culprit may be at work. We are easily distracted also because we vastly overvalue what happens to us right now compared with what comes in the future and because novelty is intrinsically rewarding. So whatever we are supposed to be focusing on has to compete with every new email, new task, new blog post and new conversation that wanders into our information sphere. These biases may have served us well in our species' evolutionary past, when the future was uncertain and the new could well be a threat that deserved immediate attention. But nowadays the new is more often trivial than essential, and sacrificing immediate rewards can yield greater ones in the future. From a review, in the Dec 14, 2008, Wall Street Journal, of The Overflowing Brain, by Torkel Klingberg. The review was written by Christopher F. Chabris. (Emphasis in original.)

In other words, we don't have time for eternity.

Whether you are comfortable with the reviewer's view of human prehistory doesn't really matter here -- we are, indeed, too concerned with the Now and the New.

Thanks for reading. Consider the past and the future a little more today.

Sunspots 190

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science:
The Hubble Space Telescope has been able to detect Carbon Dioxide on a distant planet, according to a report in Wired.

Wired has also selected the ten best animal videos.

Christianity:
John Stackhouse says that conservative means a lot of things , and it's a serious error to confuse them.

Image source (public domain)

Happy Birthday, Beethoven

It's too late to send Beethoven a card, I guess, but his God-given talent produced works that remain worthy of honor over 175 years since his death.

One tune, taken from the Ninth Symphony, is commonly used in hymnals (although hymnals, themselves, seem to be going out of style, more's the pity) for "Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee." Here's a Wikimedia Commons sound file (.0gg format) of his popular Für Elise.

Someone else is more widely known for a "Hallelujah Chorus," but Beethoven wrote one, too. Here's one of many YouTube versions. The most common phrase, in English, anyway, is "Praise the Lord!" Amen.

Thanks for reading. Listen to Beethoven.

John, on supporting missionaries

3 John 1:5 Beloved, it is a faithful thing you do in all your efforts for these brothers, strangers as they are, 6 who testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God. 7 For they have gone out for the sake of the name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles. 8 Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth. (ESV, emphasis added.)

Thanks for reading. Support a missionary!

Bonnie, of Intellectuelle, on sin and the conscience

Bonnie, at Intellectuelle, should be required reading. (She's not the only poster on that blog, and, perhaps, the others are just as good, but she's the only one I read.) Bonnie's posts are short, to the point, and so well-written that I wonder how she does it. Like most of us bloggers, she occasionally throws out something that isn't exactly destined for eternity, but a lot of hers is so destined.

I recommend this post, on sin and the conscience, by her. It's not much longer than the post you are now reading, but there's meat there.

Thanks for reading. Read Bonnie.

The Dwarves of The Last Battle and unbelief in The Princess and the Goblin

In The Last Battle, by C. S. Lewis, some dwarves have an interesting role. They refuse to believe in a false Aslan, and also refuse to believe in a real one. When the Calormenes throw them into a dark stable, they refuse to see anything but what you would expect to find in such a building, even though other characters in the book can see that the stable, in reality, is not dark, and has no walls -- just a door.

Lucy Pevensie, who has a soft heart, tries to get the Lion, Aslan, to make things better for the dwarves, Aslan produces a banquet for them. They eat, but they think they are eating old cattle food, or drinking from a trough for animals. When a dwarf is picked up and carried toward the outside, he experiences being slammed into the wall, even though there is no wall. Aslan says that they have chosen not to believe, and there is nothing he can do for them.

I have found, not surprisingly, since Lewis is known to have been influenced a great deal by the writing of George MacDonald, that there are similar ideas in MacDonald's The Princess and the Goblin. That book was originally published in 1872, hence is public domain (available from Project Gutenberg):

But you would have found me sooner if you hadn't come to think I was a dream. I will give you one reason though why you couldn't find me. I didn't want you to find me.'

'Why, please?'

'Because I did not want Lootie to know I was here.'

'But you told me to tell Lootie.'

'Yes. But I knew Lootie would not believe you. If she were to see me sitting spinning here, she wouldn't believe me, either.'

'Why?'

'Because she couldn't. She would rub her eyes, and go away and say she felt queer, and forget half of it and more, and then say it had been all a dream.'

'Just like me,' said Irene, feeling very much ashamed of herself.

'Yes, a good deal like you, but not just like you; for you've come again; and Lootie wouldn't have come again. She would have said, No, no - she had had enough of such nonsense.'

'Is it naughty of Lootie, then?'

'It would be naughty of you. I've never done anything for Lootie.'

. . .

' . . . Besides, again - I will tell you a secret - if that light were to go out you would fancy yourself lying in a bare garret, on a heap of old straw, and would not see one of the pleasant things round about you all the time.'

(from Chapter Eleven) Irene is an eight-year-old princess. The other speaker is her father's mother's father's mother, who lives in a nice suite of rooms on the top floor of the house where Irene lives, and has some marvelous powers. Irene is the only person who knows that she is there. Lootie is Irene's nurse.

How much that God sees is real do I not see, or do I see as trash, because I don't believe in Him?

Thanks for reading!

Update 3 on prayer request

I had a pain shot yesterday, and am grateful to report that I haven't taken any pain medicine for 24 hours, so far.

I will be going into slow-down mode for the next few weeks, due to getting ready for some travel.

God's best to all.

Sunspots 189

Science:
Elevation is an emotion, and the vagus nerve mediates it, according to Slate.

Wired has posted photos of 12 "living fossils." Some of them are really strange . . .

Speaking of photos of strange animals, I posted a photo of a land planarian, which was about the size and shape of a skinny pencil, except for the triangular head. It was oozing across our driveway.

I am pleased, by the way, to have been a Flickr member for four years today.

Christianity:
(Islam, in this case, but I'm not using a "religion" category.) Wisconsin Public Radio has a series, "Inside Islam." It looks like many of the posts/broadcasts are about the status of women in Muslim areas.

Image source (public domain)

Ravi Zacharias on Past, Present and Future

Some time ago, I read Can Man Live Without God, by Ravi Zacharias. (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1994) Zacharias is a Christian apologist, who knows philosophy, and knows non-Christian religions, at least some of them. (He was born in India. This is the biography page from the ministry that he heads.) Here's what he said about time in this book:

According to Christ's teaching, history is not just one event after another. Not only the present moment, nor only the past, nor only the future,but all of time is important to God. That is why the genuine Christian does not take it upon himself or herself to avenge the past. That is why the genuine Christian does not make this earthly kingdom into God's kingdom by way of the sword. That is why the genuine Christian transcends present disaster or immediate success. For him or for her, history is the arena in which God unfolds His plan and the individual is the microcosm in whom God does His work. I suggest that if you contrast this with every other world-view, you will see the striking difference in Christianity. What reassurance this brings to every individual life -- yours and mine -- to know that God is involved with us personally! The ultimate coherence that God brings is not only in the history that we see within our three-score and ten years, but for life beyond the grave itself. (p. 166)

Thanks for reading.

George MacDonald on eucatastrophes in literature

Every tragedy of higher order, constructed in Christian times, will correspond more or less to the grand drama of the Bible; wherein the first act opens with a brilliant sunset vision of Paradise, in which childish sense and need are served with all the profusion of the indulgent nurse. But the glory fades off into grey and black, and night settles down upon the heart which, rightly uncontent with the childish, and not having yet learned the childlike, seeks knowledge and manhood as a thing denied by the Maker, and yet to be gained by the creature; so sets forth alone to climb the heavens, and instead of climbing, falls into the abyss. Then follows the long dismal night of feverish efforts and delirious visions, or, it may be, helpless despair; till at length a deeper stratum of the soul is heaved to the surface; and amid the first dawn of morning, the youth says within him, "I have sinned against my Maker—I will arise and go to my Father." More or less, I say, will Christian tragedy correspond to this—a fall and a rising again; not a rising only, but a victory; not a victory merely, but a triumph. Such, in its way and degree, is my story. I have shown, in one passing scene, the home paradise; now I have to show a scene of a far differing nature. George MacDonald, "The Broken Swords," from Adela Cathcart, Volume II, originally published in 1864, hence public domain, and previously published in The Monthly Christian Spectator, 1854. Recently republished in The Gifts of the Child Christ, Vol. II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973)

Here MacDonald foreshadows Tolkien's concept of eucatastrophe -- a seeming catastrophe which turns out, in the end, for the better. Tolkien said that the Incarnation, and the resurrection, of Christ were the greatest eucatastrophes.

Thanks for reading.

Who (or what) we must not trust in

In a recent daily Bible reading, I came on these two passages:

1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (Both scripture quotations from the ESV.)

Proverbs 28:26 Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool,
but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.

We (or at least I) do trust in these things -- the US health care "system," my local library and grocery, the Post Office, my retirement accounts, my own care and good sense. They will not be enough if I get Alzheimer's, or if we go into a depression. They aren't enough now. They weren't enough even before the Paulson Plunge. They never have been, and never will be.

Thanks for reading.


* * * * *
December 8, 2008. Because of a comment, which I am grateful for, and my response to it, I have added "women's roles" to the tags for this post.

Breaking down doors: how to REALLY measure commitment

Leonard Pitts, syndicated columnist, and a good one, muses about the recent Black Friday stampedes. I'm linking, for the first time, to Moscow News, which has an article about the incident. (It really is a small world, isn't it?) This news article speaks of a Wal-Mart employee who died in a stampede as a "sacrificial victim to the pagan gods of consumerism."

Mr. Pitts uses the lining-up-early-and-pushing-against-the-door test to measure our priorities. He points out that he hasn't seen people lining up early and breaking the glass in libraries, schools, or churches, but we do this for bargains. Which, as he says, tells us something about ourselves. Something not so good, I guess.

As John put it: 1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (ESV)

I wasn't at any retail store, pushing on the door, on Black Friday. But I wasn't storming the gates of heaven, either.

Thanks for reading.

Sword of the Rightful King: A Novel of King Arthur

You might think that there's nothing new to tell in the story of King Arthur. The story has been told so many times, by so many good authors. T. H. White's The Once and Future King is a splendid piece of literature. Part of it was the basis for the Disney movie, The Sword in the Stone. White's work is deeper (and longer) than most children's literature. Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote The Mists of Avalon, a work which was, like White's, well received, and considered important. I confess that I have never read it, although I have seen parts of the movie based on the book. Stephen Lawhead wrote the Pendragon Cycle, based on the story of King Arthur. The earliest books that I read about King Arthur were those of Howard Pyle (who also illustrated his work). Pyle's The Story of the Champions of the Round Table is available from Project Gutenberg. That Hideous Strength, by C. S. Lewis, used Merlin, Arthur's friend, mentor, and wizard, as a character in the twentieth century.

I recently read the book with the same title as this post, by Jane Yolen. (Orlando: Harcourt, 2003) Sword of the Rightful King is aimed at, and classified as, being for younger readers, teenagers, I guess. No matter. I liked it. As usual, I don't want to give away the plot, but I will say three things about the book. It is well written, and well deserving of the awards it has received. Even though I had read the book some years back, I had trouble putting it down. There is a character, Gawen, who plays a major role, although no character of that name appears in any of the other books about Arthur, so far as I know. (Lest there be any doubt, Gawen is not Gawaine. Gawaine is present and accounted for in Yolen's book.) More about Gawen becomes clear toward the end of the book. Thirdly, Yolen has the sword in the stone appear after Arthur has already become king, not, as in most other treatments, before he becomes king. In these other books, Arthur becomes king because he is the only man (or boy) who can pull the sword out of the stone. In Yolen's book, he is also the only man (or boy) who can do this, but he solidifies his kingship by doing so.

It shouldn't be difficult to find a library with a book by Yolen. She has written nearly 300 books!

Thanks for reading.

Update 2 on prayer request

I visited a neurosurgeon yesterday about the pain in a leg (sometimes in both), and was told that I have a pinched nerve, which can probably be successfully treated without surgery. I have begun a course of treatment which includes medication and physical therapy. I'm trying to learn to pick things up more carefully. My wife has been extremely supportive, for which I thank her.

Let's put it this way: There are too many miles on this vehicle -- in other words, I have some deterioration because of my age.

Thanks be to God!

Sunspots 188

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Humor:

Science:
Maybe salmon find their way to their home streams by detecting the earth's magnetic field, and, if that's true, maybe we can re-program them, reports Wired.

Politics:

Music:

Sports:

Computing:
(or something) Wired reports that Apple is defending itself against a lawsuit by claiming that no reasonable person would believe its advertisements.

Slate on energy consumption by laptop computers -- more when using the battery, or more when plugged in? (The article says that laptops are more efficient, energy-wise, than desktops.)

Literature:

Philosophy:

Christianity:
What a one and a half ton steer knows about faith, from Slate.

Bonnie posts on style.

Jan has been questioning the emphasis on leadership in some corners of the church. A recent post is here.

Julana has spent all of last month, more or less, reminding us of ordinary things that she is thankful for. The last such post is here.

Image source (public domain)

The Trouble With Physics

Some time ago, I read Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics. (New York: Houghton, 2006)

The trouble, as Smolin sees it, is that physics has become too fixated on string theory. Smolin, a physicist who has contributed to string theory himself, is not sure that string theory is wrong, but he is sure that physics isn't telling us any more about how the universe is made than it did a few decades ago.

The twentieth century was a period when physics produced two important new ways of looking at the universe. These were relativity, which, among other things, led to the use of nuclear energy, and quantum mechanics, which, among other things, led to the development of lasers and semiconductors. Without lasers and semiconductors, computers, as we now use them, would be impossible.

But there have been problems. The main one is that there was no satisfactory way to combine the two theories. String theory is the most common attempt to do so, claiming that "strings" are the fundamental units of matter, and that there are really more than 4 dimensions (3 for space and one for time).

Smolin lists five "Great Problems in Theoretical Physics." (pp. 3-17, chapter 1) They are:
1) combine relativity and gravity into a theory of quantum gravity
2) "resolve the problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics" (p. 8)
3) find out if all the particles and all the forces are the manifestation of a single entity
4) "Explain how the values of the free constants in the standard model of particle physics are chosen in nature." (p. 13)
5) "Explain dark matter and dark energy." (p. 16)

He says that string theory, so far, has not made significant progress in solving these problems. Furthermore, string theory, so far, is not really falsifiable -- it hasn't proposed experiments which could show that it is wrong.

Smolin believes that one of the problems with modern physics is that it is not philosophical enough:

The standard model of particle physics was the triumph of a particular way of doing science that came to dominate physics in the 1940s. This style is pragmatic and hard-nosed and favors virtuosity in calculating over reflection on hard conceptual problems. This is profoundly different from the way that Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, and the other early-twentieth-century revolutionaries did science. Their work arose from deep thought on the most basic questions surrounding space, time, and matter, and they saw what they did as part of a broader philosophical tradition, in which they were at home. In the approach to particle physics developed and taught by Richard Feynman, Freeman Dyson, and others, reflection on foundational problems had no place in research. Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. New York: Houghton, 2006. pp. xxii-xxiii.

Smolin says that this approach enabled great progress to be made, but goes on to say that:
. . . the problems we're up against today cannot be solved by this pragmatic way of doing science. To continue the progress of science, we have to again confront deep questions about space and time, quantum theory, and cosmology. We again need the kinds of people who can invent new solutions to long-standing fundamental problems. Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. New York: Houghton, 2006. p. xxiii.

Another problem, he says, is that the most important physics departments are biased in hiring. They tend to hire only people who are committed to the approaches they are using already, which cuts out new ideas. He also says that they are biased against women and minorities.

God made us stewards of His creation. Part of our stewardship is learning about it -- doing science. We have, we think, made great progress in going from, say, a belief that there were four kinds of substance to the current belief in many chemical elements. Will we ever really understand how things are put together, at their most basic level? I don't know. I think that some of us are supposed to try. See this post for musings about the topics of this paragraph.

Disclaimer: I am not a professional physicist.

Thanks for reading.

Ursula K. Le Guin on fantastic literature

The old lady is still sharp! Ursula K. Le Guin, probably the best author of fantastic literature of the last four decades of the previous century, and, so far, in this one, occasionally writes on her craft. One such essay, "The critics, the monsters, and the fantasists. (critics' opinion of fantasy fiction)," was published in the Winter-Spring, 2007, issue of Wordsworth Circle, which article is not, at least currently, freely available on the Internet. (Le Guin is well aware that J. R. R. Tolkien wrote famously about his craft, using some of those same words in his title.) I present a few choice quotes from Le Guin's essay:
I venture a non-defining statement: realistic fiction is drawn towards anthropocentrism, fantasy away from it.

Tolkien's Middle Earth is not just pre-industrial. It is also pre-human and non-human.

In my school for magic on the Isle of Roke in The Earthsea Trilogy, we say that children's books must be included in serious discussion of literature, and one reason we give is that many of the great works of imaginative fiction can be understood and appreciated by a child as well as by an adult--and vice versa. The understanding and appreciation may be different in kind, but its quality is the same, and deserves critical consideration. To throw a book out of serious consideration either because it was written for children, or because it is read by children, is in fact a monstrous act of anti-intellectualism. But it happens daily in academia.

Thanks for reading!

Having one ruler versus many

C. S. Lewis, in The Silver Chair (Macmillan, 1953, p. 131), said (through Puddleglum) that "There are no accidents . . ."

My devotional readings included the following, on two consecutive days:

Ezekiel 37:21 then say to them, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land. 22 And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms. (Both quotations from the ESV, with emphasis added.)

Proverbs 28:2 When a land transgresses, it has many rulers,
but with a man of understanding and knowledge,
its stability will long continue.

I guess there's a lesson in there. Our natural tendency is selfish -- making ourselves the ruler of everything and everybody we can. That way lies disaster. The right tendency is submission to Christ, and to those around us.

Or, as James put it, in what I read on the next day:
James 4:1 What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? 2a You desire and do not have, so you murder.

Thanks for reading.

Hugh Ross puts his faith on the line

In his book, Creation as Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/Evolution Wars (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2006), Hugh Ross says that he tells audiences that he "would let go of my Christian Faith" if he discovered that it did not have a factual foundation. This usually shocks most of his listeners, but, says Ross, a faith based on falsehood is not a faith worth keeping. As he points out, Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15 and elsewhere, went to considerable length to show that Christianity does have a factual foundation. Ross is the founder of Reasons to Believe.

In a previous post, I quoted David Snoke, author of A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006), as saying almost exactly the same thing.

Thanks for reading.

A few more things that I am thankful for

I'm thankful for diffusion. Without it, Oxygen couldn't get into my bloodstream from my lungs, and a lot of other important things wouldn't take place in my body. I'm also thankful for osmosis, a form of diffusion which allows water to get into my cells.

I'm thankful for Sodium and Potassium ions, which allow my nerve cells to carry messages throughout my body.

I'm thankful for lasers, which, among other things, let me use DVDs and CDs.

I'm thankful for kapok, sweetgum, and Bradford pear trees, which are some of God's many beautiful creations.

I'm thankful for myriorama, a Flickr contact, who is so great at finding organisms that I never see, in her area of South Carolina.

I'm thankful for the Bible, including parts of it that I don't understand, because they remind me that God knows more than I do.

Here's another post about things I am thankful for.

I'm thankful for you, the reader. Thanks for reading!

Sunspots 187

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science:
Wired reports on stars with an immensely strong magnetic field.

Politics:
(or something . . .) A map of what soft drinks/pop/soda are/is called in the US, by county. Fascinating.

Sports:
(Not on-line, so far as I know.) I watched a little of ESPN's men's college basketball coverage on November 18th. President-elect Barack Obama (by tape) said that he had gotten to play a little against Tyler Hansborough, North Carolina's national player of the year for the previous season, during the campaign, and almost scored against him. Hubert Davis, ESPN commentator, and former UNC player, said that he was there, and watched this in person, and that Hansborough contained Obama pretty much completely. Bobby Knight, former coach, and also ESPN commentator, told Davis that, in a few days, Obama would be in charge of agencies that could make Davis disappear, so he'd better be careful. It was all good fun (I think!)

Christianity:
Bob Jones University has apologized for its past racist policies on admission and inter-racial dating, saying that they were shaped by the culture, rather than by the Scripture.

Jan has been posting on servant leadership, or Christian servanthood. Here's one of her posts. Short and to the point.

Somebody has posted a graphical representation of the cross-referencing between parts of the Bible.

Someone named Anonymous found one of my old posts, (on Abishag) over three years old, a couple of days ago. I thank God that He helped me write it, and that it is still available.

Thanks for reading!

Image source (public domain)

A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, by David Snoke, part 9

I have posted several times on David Snoke's A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker Books, 2006). The most recent post is here.

Having considered the main arguments for young-earth creationism, and seriously weakened or demolished them, using the Bible itself, Snoke considers the question of the relationship between science and Christianity. Although he does not mention Ian Barbour (and perhaps is unaware of him) Barbour has been the most prominent voice arguing for Integration of science and Christianity. (As opposed to supposing that they are necessarily in conflict, or that they have nothing to say to each other.) Snoke uses the term, Concordist science. For what it's worth, I agree whole-heartedly. Scientific facts are one part of God's revelation to us, and, although not as important as the Bible, or, especially as God's revelation in Jesus Christ, the different ways in which God has revealed Himself to us should agree, or at least work together, provided, of course, that we understand them well enough.

So why do some Christians, who take the Bible seriously, take the position that science and Biblical revelation are opposed?

Many Christians seem to be afraid to make any predictions based on the Bible that could be falsified, for fear that people will reject all of Christianity if it is attached to a particular scientific theory. This, in my experience, lies at the root of much of the objection to concordantist science. Many Christians want to seal off their Christian belief from any possible contradiction with science, so that it is an impregnable fortress against all attack.
I call this basic mind-set of so many Christians, both conservative and liberal, the "two-worlds" view. . . . This view says, in essence, that science and real-world experience lie in one world and that the Bible and theology lie in another world, completely distinct from the first. The two worlds do not contradict each other because they cannot; no overlap exists so one world does not have implications in the other. The Bible has authority in matters of faith, but not at all in matters of science, because faith and science have nothing to say about each other. . . . This two-worlds mind-set reflects an essentially defensive posture. Having survived a long tradition of attack on Christianity in the name of science, many Christians assume that if the two worlds did overlap, then science would surely contradict Christian faith. Even if science does not presently appear to contradict our faith, the possibility always exists that it will. (pp. 117-8)

Well, says Snoke, so what if there is that possibility? He goes on to make a strong statement:
We must face the facts: if the Bible is wrong, utterly wrong, about the history of our origins, then we should dump it. We cannot avoid this risky aspect of our faith. If we protect the Bible by attacking modern science, or if we protect it by making it speak only about matters of morality and personal faith, we have cut it off from the real world and made it far less than it claims to be. (p. 121)

Wow! But I think he is exactly right about that.

Thanks for reading. Read Snoke.

A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, by David Snoke, part 8

I continue my posts on David Snoke's A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006). The most recent post is here. In that post, I considered some of Snoke's biblical evidence that the days of Genesis 1, and of Genesis 2:1-3, were not necessarily consecutive 24-hour days.

Snoke has more evidence. On page 141, he points out that Genesis 2:4, which, of course, comes right after Genesis 2:3, uses "day" to refer to a period of time that clearly is not a 24-hour day:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations
of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. (ESV, emphasis added. All scripture quotations from this version.)

(Not all versions of the Bible use "day" here -- the NIV and the NLT do not, but at least the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB and the RSV, as well as the ESV, use "day." I checked the Hebrew -- I do not know Hebrew, but can look it up, using an option in the Blueletter Bible -- and the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2:4 is the same word, as far as I can tell.)

Mr. Snoke says, correctly, that young-earth proponents often recognize that "day" is used in the Bible for periods longer than a 24-hour period, but say that when "evening" and "morning" are used with "day," it always means a literal day. Not so, he says, citing Psalm 90, which is usually attributed to Moses, who apparently wrote Genesis:

3 You return man to dust

and say, “Return, O children of man!”
4 For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night.

5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream,
like grass that is renewed in the morning:
6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed;
in the evening it fades and withers.

A day, yesterday, is said to be like a thousand years, and evening and morning are used in the same passage. The Hebrew word for yesterday is not the same as the Hebrew word for day, used in the passages above, and doesn't even seem to have been derived from it, which weakens Snoke's argument. Snoke mentions other passages which use evening and morning in a non-literal sense, namely Psalm 30:4-5, Psalm 49:14, and Psalm 90:10, 13-14, but they don't use a word for "day," or even "yesterday."

On page 144-5, Snoke says, again correctly, that some young-earth advocates agree that "day," and "morning and evening" can refer to non-literal periods of time, but say that if days are numbered, they must be literal 24-hour days. Snoke's response is that Genesis 1 is the only occasion where the Bible uses numbers with days, in this way, so there is no way to check this claim. He mentions Numbers 29, but says that the construction is quite different.

Snoke discusses Genesis 2:5-7:
5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

I have posted on this passage previously, and, in that post, link to two other, more important authors, both of whom argue, as Snoke does, that this passage is difficult, or impossible, to reconcile with Genesis 1, if Genesis 1 is taken to mean consecutive 24-hour periods when it uses "day."

To quote A Biblical Case for an Old Earth: Note that if the land had emerged from the waters just three days earlier (assuming that these events [of Genesis 2:5-7] happen on Day 6, and the land appeared from under the waters on Day 3, in the young-earth view), then it hardly makes sense that the land would be dry and unfertile. For that matter, giving any discussion of causation for the lack of vegetation seems out of place, if the land had only just appeared. The sense of the text is that the land had been around a long time, so long that it had dried out. (p. 153) The young-earth view is that the events happened on day 6.

Snoke also writes about the rivers mentioned in Genesis 2. He says that the Pishon river (no river now existing is named that) was most likely a river that flowed across the Arabian peninsula in the past. (The other rivers, the Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates, still exist.) He cites Carol Hill (See here for her paper -- Snoke mistakenly calls her "Caroline.") as evidence for this claim.

As Snoke says, these rivers present a serious problem for young-earth creationism:
. . . this river lies on top of sedimentary geological layers that young-earth creationists would say were deposited in the flood of Noah. So do the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. To accept this convincing case for the historicity of Genesis, Bible scholars must either accept an old-earth view or believe that God created sedimentary rock at the beginning, before the fall and the flood. (p. 155. "this river" is the Pishon.)

It seems to me that Snoke has assembled evidence, as presented here and in the previous posts, that makes it difficult to sustain an argument for young-earth creationism.

Thanks for reading.

Is Israel back in its homeland yet?

Ezekiel 11:17 Therefore say, ‘Thus says the Lord God: I will gather you from the peoples and assemble you out of the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.’ 18 And when they come there, they will remove from it all its detestable things and all its abominations. 19 And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, 20 that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. (ESV, emphasis added)

Many people claim that the establishment of the nation of Israel in 1948 fulfills prophecy, and is one of the signs of Christ's imminent return. Perhaps they are right. Many people claim that the Jews should control the same boundaries that they did in, say, David's time, in fulfillment of prophecy. Perhaps they are right. But I wonder. The current Jews may be in Israel as a result of human effort, not God's end-time action, just as they tried to enter the land before they were supposed to, in the time of Moses. They don't seem to have "one heart," and a "new spirit." They seem to be divided, with many current Israelites not believing in God at all, and most of them rejecting Christ as Messiah. They seem to have an "old spirit."

Here's more from Ezekiel:
28:25 “Thus says the Lord God: When I gather the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and manifest my holiness in them in the sight of the nations, then they shall dwell in their own land that I gave to my servant Jacob. 26 And they shall dwell securely in it, and they shall build houses and plant vineyards. They shall dwell securely, when I execute judgments upon all their neighbors who have treated them with contempt. Then they will know that I am the Lord their God.” (ESV, emphasis added) Israelis don't seem to feel very secure now. Perhaps it's because God didn't gather them back yet.

For more on this topic, see a post from Ken Schenck, Bible scholar, who says "The long and short of all these things is that it would be perilous to make contemporary political decisions in relation to the nation of Israel and the Middle East on the basis of supposed biblical prophecy."

God help them, and help us.