Prophecy: The first four fulfilled Messianic prophecies

The New Testament, especially the book of Matthew, which was apparently written with a Jewish audience in mind, frequently reminds us of Old Testament prophecies about Christ.

Matthew indicates Old Testament prophecies which were fulfilled by events related to Christ's life on earth. I'm going to muse about the first four of these. I shall use the World English Bible, which is public domain, throughout this post.

The first fulfilled prophecy is in Matthew 1:23:

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child,

and shall bring forth a son.

They shall call his name Immanuel”;

which is, being interpreted, “God with us.”

This is a quotation from Isaiah 7:14. However, I quote additional verses from that chapter:

7:10 Yahweh spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask a sign of Yahweh your God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.”
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, neither will I tempt Yahweh.”
13 He said, “Listen now, house of David. Is it not enough for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 He shall eat butter and honey when he knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings you abhor shall be forsaken. 17 Yahweh will bring on you, on your people, and on your father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. 18 It will happen in that day that Yahweh will whistle for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.

Matthew says that 7:14 was a fulfilled prophecy about the birth of Christ, so it must have been. But it would have taken extraordinary wisdom to find such a prophecy in Isaiah's original proclamation, which, on the face of it, is given as a prophecy of God's judgment on the kingdom of Ahaz. There are other difficulties. Did Jesus ever have to learn to refuse evil? Was there a child born in Ahaz's time, who also fulfilled this prophecy? (My NIV study bible suggests that a betrothed wife of Isaiah may have been referred to.) What am I saying? I'm saying that it is unlikely that Ahaz, or even Isaiah, would have taken Isaiah 7:14 to be a prophecy about the coming of Christ. Matthew, and you and I, can see that it was, in hindsight.

An interesting sidelight about this prophecy is that some scholars have translated the Hebrew word from Isaiah, which the WEB has rendered as "virgin," as "young woman." This includes a recent translation, the New American Bible, Revised Edition, which has the approval of the U. S. Catholic Bishops. The Catholic Bishops, I'm sure, are not changing their belief that Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived, but are apparently convinced that the Hebrew word did not have to mean "virgin."

The second prophecy listed by Matthew as fulfilled is in 2:6:
2:6 'You Bethlehem, land of Judah,
    are in no way least among the princes of Judah:
for out of you shall come forth a governor,
    who shall shepherd my people, Israel.'

The original statement is in Micah 5:

5:1 Now you shall gather yourself in troops,
    daughter of troops.
He has laid siege against us.
    They will strike the judge of Israel with a rod on the cheek.
2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
    being small among the clans of Judah,
    out of you one will come forth to me that is to be ruler in Israel;
    whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.
3 Therefore he will abandon them until the time that she who is in labor gives birth.
    Then the rest of his brothers will return to the children of Israel.
4 He shall stand, and shall shepherd in the strength of Yahweh,
    in the majesty of the name of Yahweh his God:
    and they will live, for then he will be great to the ends of the earth.
5 He will be our peace when Assyria invades our land,
    and when he marches through our fortresses,
    then we will raise against him seven shepherds,
    and eight leaders of men.
6 They will rule the land of Assyria with the sword,
    and the land of Nimrod in its gates.

It is clear that at least one scholar understood that verse 2 referred to the birth of the Messiah, because he communicated that to the Wise Men. But the context, before and after, involves warfare, in particular against the Assyrians. I wonder if anyone familiar with this prophecy, when it was given, would have understood that it was talking, in part, about the birth of God's Son, the Savior?

The third prophecy is this:

Matthew 2:14 He arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt, 15 and was there until the death of Herod; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Here's the original:
Hosea 11:1 “When Israel was a child, then I loved him,
    and called my son out of Egypt.
2 They called to them, so they went from them.
    They sacrificed to the Baals,
    and burned incense to engraved images.
3 Yet I taught Ephraim to walk.
    I took them by his arms;
    but they didn’t know that I healed them.
4 I drew them with cords of a man, with ties of love;
    and I was to them like those who lift up the yoke on their necks;
    and I bent down to him and I fed him.
5 “They won’t return into the land of Egypt;
    but the Assyrian will be their king,
    because they refused to repent.

This seems to be speaking of the Exodus, and subsequent events. Apparently God meant this prophecy to cover more than one event, one national, and one related to the early life of Christ. For a discussion of this prophecy by a Bible scholar, Ken Schenck, see here.

The fourth prophecy, a sad one, is:

Matthew 2:18 “A voice was heard in Ramah,
    lamentation, weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children;
    she wouldn’t be comforted,
    because they are no more.”

The source is Jeremiah 31:11 For Yahweh has ransomed Jacob, and redeemed him from the hand of him who was stronger than he. 12 They shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow to the goodness of Yahweh, to the grain, and to the new wine, and to the oil, and to the young of the flock and of the herd: and their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all. 13 Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old together; for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow. 14 I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, says Yahweh. 15 Thus says Yahweh: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more. 16 Thus says Yahweh: Refrain your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for your work shall be rewarded, says Yahweh; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. 17 There is hope for your latter end, says Yahweh; and your children shall come again to their own border.


It would seem that this, too, would have been difficult, or impossible, to read as a prophecy of Herod killing the boy babies to try to kill Christ. The passage, as a whole, is a prophecy of the restoration of Israel.

My point is that, based on these four prophecies, where we know that they have been fulfilled, at least partly, and how they were fulfilled, there would have been real difficulty for anyone to have understood what they were all about until Matthew told us. I mean this as a cautionary tale about prophecies of end times, so popular in our own day.


Here's a related post, about end time prophecy, and one asking whether the establishment of Israel in 1948 is fulfillment of prophecy. Here is a post by a Bible scholar, on the same subject.


Thanks for reading.

*  *  *  *  *  *

May 19, 2012: I have now considered the fifth prophecy about Jesus that Matthew treats as fulfilled. That case is, if anything, more difficult to understand than the four above. 

February 2, 2013: I added a link to a recent post from Ken Schenck to the discussion of the third prophecy.

June 7, 2019: There are serious dangers to using scripture out of context. But it appears that Matthew, no doubt under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, used all four of these prophecies as if they were independent of surrounding contextual material. (See scripture quotations above.)

Prayers in the Bible: Moses and the idolatry of the Israelites

Exodus 32:11 Moses begged Yahweh his God, and said, “Yahweh, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, that you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 32:12 Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, ‘He brought them forth for evil, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the surface of the earth?’ Turn from your fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against your people. 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your seed as the stars of the sky, and all this land that I have spoken of I will give to your seed, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 32:14 Yahweh repented of the evil which he said he would do to his people. (WEB)
I suspect that God knew full well that Moses was going to intercede for the people, and that He wouldn't destroy them utterly. But Moses didn't know it, until he had interceded, and God had honored his prayer. This prayer shows that it is all right to pray for sinners, or, rather, to pray that they won't be punished. Furthermore, it was all right for Moses to pray in opposition to what God had said. Remarkable. I would be most reluctant to try that myself.

Thanks for reading. This is one in a series of posts on prayers in the Bible. The previous post was last Sunday's, Feb 20th.

Why did God create things?

I am, of course, assuming that God did create.

I have occasionally remarked, in this blog, that the Bible doesn't tell us why God created, or how, or when, but it does tell us Who. I was wrong. We do know something of why God created.

Some people believe that we do know why, and that Revelation 4:11 tells us why: "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." (KJV. The song "Thou Art Worthy" is based on this verse.) However, that translation is probably misleading. Here's a compilation of several translations of that verse. The majority, including the New KJV, render that phrase as "by your will," rather than "for your pleasure." In fact, the Greek word θέλημα, thelema, translated as "for thy pleasure" in this case, is translated as "at your will" in the 59 other verses where it occurs, in the KJV.

I have now read an article that claims to give reasons why God created. Here are the reasons presented:

1) To show God's glory. Bishop, the author, quotes Romans 1:20 in support of that: "For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse." (All Bible quotations are from the WEB) He could have quoted Psalm 19:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God.
    The expanse shows his handiwork. 
2 Day after day they pour forth speech,
    and night after night they display knowledge. 
3 There is no speech nor language,
    where their voice is not heard. 
4 Their voice has gone out through all the earth,
    their words to the end of the world.  

2) To serve as God's temple. (The author quotes Psalm 78:69, Psalm 93:1-2, and Isaiah 66:1.) I have some problems with this, or at least with the scripture taken to support it. I'm not sure that it does. Psalm 93:1-2 says:
93:1 Yahweh reigns!
He is clothed with majesty!
Yahweh is armed with strength.
The world also is established.
It can’t be moved.
2 Your throne is established from long ago.
You are from everlasting. (WEB)

We aren't to take the last part of verse 1 literally, surely. Why should we take the rest of it as literal, rather than poetic?
Hebrews speaks of a temple of God in the heavens. Why did God need a temple on earth, then? I'm not convinced.

3) Bishop writes: "Another of God’s purposes, that we’ve already seen, is for creation to become uniquely what it is called to be in Christ." OK. I can see that one, even though there's not explicit scripture cited for it. Bishop might have used Romans 8:18-25. (See below)

4)Bishop's next reason is that God wanted to populate the earth with life. He uses Isaiah 45:18 as part of his justification. Here it is:
45:18 For thus says Yahweh who created the heavens,
the God who formed the earth and made it,
who established it and didn’t create it a waste,
who formed it to be inhabited: (WEB)

5) The author's last reason is this: ". . . God intends for creation to be an arena for comprehensive redemption . . ." He uses Romans 8 as his Biblical justification.

In summary, after reading Bishop, I conclude that, while we can't understand all of God's purposes, we can grasp, from the Bible, that God's plans were to create beings for His glory, and to redeem creation.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 302

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

Science: Wired has a report on the language ability of dolphins.

Politics: (or something) National Public Radio has posted an essay on how quickly we receive news, in this day. 

Sports: A video of a fantastic soccer goal by a Wayne Rooney, of the UK, kicking while upside down.

Computing: A list of 260 web sites where you can get free books on-line. Note: the Amazon Kindle book reader (and lots of free books) are available from Amazon, for free, for various computers and smart phones. You can also download the Barnes and Noble Nook, free. Many free books can be read with your browser, without either the Kindle or the Nook.

 

Image source (public domain)

C. S. Lewis on the ultimate meaning of things

Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, “Why is there a universe?” “Why does it go on as it does?” “Has it any meaning?” would remain just as they were? C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, HarperSanFrancisco, 2001, p. 23.

IBM versus humans: Lessons from "Jeopardy"

I watched the final episode of the contest between IBM's Watson, a computer system, and two great human players, on Jeopardy. Watson won. But, as a Wired commentator says, the real lessons from this match are how good, and how efficient, the human brain is. I was thinking the same thoughts, but he published first, and probably said it better.

Thanks for reading. Use your brain!

Prayers in the Bible: Paul in Ephesians 3

Ephesians 3:14 For this cause, I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 3:15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 3:16 that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, that you may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward man; 3:17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 3:18 may be strengthened to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 3:19 and to know Christ’s love which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. 3:20 Now to him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, 3:21 to him be the glory in the assembly and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen. (WEB)

Paul is praying for his readers, apparently the church in Ephesus, in this passage. In one phrase, his prayer is that that group of believers would "know Christ's love." May I also know it!

This is one of a series on prayers in the Bible. The previous post in the series is here.

Philippians 4:8 poster

A poster, based on Philippians 4:8, from our church's Sunday School lesson from tomorrow. You should be able to see larger versions of this by clicking on the graphic, which is a link to the original in my Flickr photostream.

In the WEB, the verse reads: "Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are honorable, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report; if there is any virtue, and if there is any praise, think about these things."

Paul doesn't explicitly say so, but I think he was also telling us to avoid thinking of things that aren't true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, of good report, with virtue, and worth of praise.

Thanks for looking and reading. Think about true and lovely things. There are some.

Happy 50th

Happy 50th anniversary to my second youngest brother and his wife. They are celebrating by going to South America, bird-watching.

The main photo was taken in a restaurant near their home, in 2008. The photo in the window was taken by the brother between the honoree and me, at their wedding, which took place during a snowstorm in Wisconsin. Let's put it this way -- the bride's party had to wait an hour after the scheduled wedding time for the groom and party to arrive.

All the best to both of them. Many marriages don't last 50 weeks, in this day and time.

Sunspots 301

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

Humor: (and maybe The Arts) A stairway in a mall in Sweden has been transformed into a piano keyboard you walk up.

Politics: I'm not making this up: A petition to add traffic lights to a road in North Carolina was so good that a traffic official is having the petitioner investigated for practicing traffic engineering without a license.

 
Sports: Aaron Rodgers, Super Bowl most valuable player, is a Christian.

Wired reports on a new sport, Hockern, from Germany (with a video). Think of it as a cross between a stool and a skateboard.

Image source (public domain)

Love poster

You may be able to see larger versions of this poster from my Flickr photostream -- use the photo as a link. No password or membership is required to see Flickr photos.

I thank my wife for advice on this poster, and it is dedicate to her. She wished that I had used a different translation, but I wanted one in public domain, and the RSV seemed best. Her problem was with 1 Corinthians 13:7, which, in the RSV, says "believes all things." Some versions have "trusts" here, instead, and I think that that conveys the meaning better. I believe that the idea is that we trust God's love, no matter what.

As you probably know, there is more than one word for love in the Greek. (See Wikipedia article on The Four Loves, by C. S. Lewis.)

Thank you, God, for Your great love, which I don't deserve.

prayers in the Bible: Paul in 2 Thessalonians 1

2 Thessalonians 1:11 To this end we also pray always for you, that our God may count you worthy of your calling, and fulfill every desire of goodness and work of faith, with power; 1:12 that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. (WEB)

Here is a simple, yet profound prayer. It is that God would count us worthy of our calling! How simple. How profound. May it be so in my own life.

This is part of a series on prayers in the Bible. The previous post in the series is here.

Thanks for reading.

Is "Christian Speculative Fiction" an oxymoron?

I recently read an interesting exchange between two writers on the Speculative Faith blog. In the first post, Mike Duran states as a fact: "While Borders and Barnes and Noble contain aisles of horror, science fiction, graphic novels, and fantasy, spec titles comprise a relatively minuscule portion of the religious fiction market." (I think he's right about that.) In his attempt to explain this, he doesn't exactly say that Christians can't write speculative fiction. But he does say ". . . speculative fiction, by its very nature, grates against the core of Christianity, which states that some things are beyond the pale of speculation." He also suggests that Christians are bound by their beliefs -- they can't question some of them, such as the nature of God, even in fiction, while non-believers are not so bound.

Rebecca Luella Miller, the blog's owner, responded. She says that all writers, not just Christians, are constrained by their beliefs. She uses Phillip Pullman as an example, saying, correctly, I believe, that Pullman wouldn't write about an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God because he doesn't believe that such a being is possible. Miller concludes that Christians actually have more freedom to create speculative worlds. "And we can infuse those worlds with a Being capable of coloring outside all boxes — because He made the boxes and the colors. How unlimiting for a writer. How speculative. And how Christian."

Both of these authors are at least partly correct. Christian bookstores are not the best place to go to purchase speculative fiction. And there seem to be some things, for example a God who is unjust and evil, that Christians won't write about, even in fantastic literature. And it is also true that writers are constrained by their beliefs.

But there were some things left out of the discussion. One of them is that Christian, and Christian fiction, are not defined. Is Christian fiction fiction in which people come to belief? Is it fiction which is published by certain publishers who market their books for evangelicals (mostly women)?

I have posted a tentative solution to the first problem. I have attempted to describe Christian fiction.

A second problem with the exchange is that it fails to cite some recent works of fantastic literature that have been well-received by the public at large, and are, I would say, Christian novels. Eifelheim was a nominee for the Hugo award in 2007. Important characters believed in a monotheistic God, and prayed to Him. There were choices between good and evil. There were even conversions, no less (of aliens). Doomsday Book, by Connie Willis, won both the Hugo and Nebula awards in 1992. At least one of the main characters, Roche, is faced with an important choice between good and evil. Can he continue to believe in a good God, pray and hope, in spite of a terrible plague -- which eventually kills him? Yes, he can. At least some of the works of Stephen Lawhead were published, and marketed, by "mainstream" publishers, and sold well, and were read by people who wouldn't even know about faith fiction. There are other examples.

Thomson has responded to Duran's post, here. Her main thrust is that ". . . all fiction is speculative . . ."

Thanks for reading. Read Speculative Faith!

Sunspots 300

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

Science: The DNA of the water flea, Daphnia, has been sequenced, according to a report on NPR.

That marcescence is the term applied to deciduous trees that do not shed their leaves in the fall, such as the beech.

Politics: Wired discusses attempts to count large gatherings, like those in Cairo. They say that Tahrir Square will only hold about 225,000 people.

(or something) A newly discovered Brazilian tribe has probably had no contact with "civilized" people, ever. Wired shows photos, taken from the air. There are perhaps 100 such tribes around the world.

Computing:  Gizmo's Freeware reports on Prey, a free program, running on Windows, Mac, and Android, that allows you to order a missing smart phone to send you a map of where it is, and/or take photos showing its surroundings.

Image source (public domain)

Describing Christian novels

A few years ago, during an attack of hubris, I attempted to define Christian novels. It's a difficult thing to do, to say the least. I now believe that a description makes more sense than a definition. It's not much easier.

I'm avoiding two fundamental issues, namely what a novel is, or what Christianity is.

Here's my description. A Christian novel should include three things. First, some sort of important choice between good and evil. There should also be evidence that a character has hope, beyond despair. Such a work should also contain at least one of the following, as a significant part of the plot, or the theme, or as an attribute of an important character: 1) A Christ-figure 2) Belief in important orthodox Christian doctrine, on the part of a narrator or character 3) Practicing prayer to a monotheistic divine being 4) Having a relationship with such a monotheistic divine being in other significant ways, including receiving guidance from him, or being placed in his presence. (For more discussion of these points, see the post indicated in the first sentence.)

This is a broader description than some have proposed. Angela Hunt put forth a simpler one, with three characteristics only, namely that the story should illustrate some aspect of Christian faith, that the writing should avoid obscenity and profanity (she didn't define these) and that it should offer hope. She was writing about what she has called "faith fiction" which is fiction aimed mainly at a female evangelical Christian audience. Hunt has written a lot of that herself. Hunt writes "I'm sure you're waiting for me to say there must be a conversion scene, a moral, a sermon, prayer, the name of Jesus, Christian protagonists, angels, or something else, but that's it." Most faith fiction does involve a conversion, and some of the other aspects that Hunt mentions, which aren't for her, requirements. I think most faith fiction also includes a marriage, or points toward a forthcoming marriage.

I would agree with Hunt on most matters, and I think our descriptions overlap a great deal. I prefer not to read books with lots of profanity or obscenity in them, but I believe it would be possible to write a thoroughly Christian work, meeting my description, which included such language. I think she's right about hope, although it doesn't seem to me that it would have to be realized within the novel. I thank her for mentioning hope as a critical component. I wouldn't have included it if I hadn't read her post.

My own interest is in what I call fantastic literature. I cannot recall reading any award-winning fantasy or science fiction works which had language that turned me off.

Could a non-Christian write a book that meets my description, or Hunt's? I suppose so. Such an author probably wouldn't.

Let me mention three specific cases. The Narnia books, by C. S. Lewis, match the description. Aslan is a Christ-figure, dying for the sin of someone else. Characters have a relationship with Aslan. The children sometimes pray to Aslan. There are moral choices, lots of them. Perhaps the most important Christian doctrine, the Atonement, is portrayed directly, in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. It is no wonder that the series is sometimes described as being too preachy.

Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy is not so obvious as the Narnia books. There are moral choices, such as Galadriel's decision not to take the ring from Frodo, Denethor's decision to put his own judgment above Gandalf's, and Saruman's decision to advance himself, rather than trying to defeat Sauron, are bad choices between good and evil. Gandalf dies in Moria, and returns to life, which is part of being a Christ-figure. No one seems to pray. No one seems to have a relationship with the higher deity or deities, and the books don't give a clear picture of monotheism. As to belief in an orthodox Christian doctrine, the only one I can come up with is forgiveness and/or mercy. Sam, Frodo and Bilbo were all merciful toward Gollum. Boromir sought forgiveness for trying to take the ring from Frodo. There is hope, throughout the book.

As much as I like the work of Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea books, they aren't Christian. (Le Guin says that she is a Taoist.) There are certainly moral choices, and there is hope. But there is no evident belief in a monotheistic god, no relationship with such, and no prayer. And Ged isn't really a Christ-figure. He doesn't actually die, let alone die for someone else, although he does lose his magical abilities in saving Earthsea. Ged's first archmage, Nemmerle, does die, repairing damage that a younger Ged has done, but he really didn't die for Ged, but for his task, to preserve the equilibrium of Earthsea. And death, itself, is problematic. The dead go into the Dry Land, a realm where they seem to just sort of wander around forever, although a wizard with great power can summon their spirits, apparently temporarily. (See this review, on Le Guin's web site, which says a little about the Dry Land, and about Le Guin's Taoism.) The Dry Land is an alternative to orthodox Christian doctrine. There is no heaven, and no hell, in Earthsea.

Thanks for reading. This made me think, and maybe it will do the same for someone else.

Added June 16, 2012: E. Stephen Burnett, of the Speculative Faith blog, has written a post entitled Define 'Christian Speculative Story.' The Speculative Faith blog is indispensable for persons interested in the intersection of Christianity and fantastic literature. I wish that Burnett, and the other authors, would pay less attention to fiction written and marketed to evangelical Christians, and more to fiction which is marketed to a wider audience, but that's a quibble.

Prayers in the Bible: Paul in Colossians 1

Colossians 1:3 We give thanks to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, 1:4 having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which you have toward all the saints, 1:5 because of the hope which is laid up for you in the heavens, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the Good News, 1:6 which has come to you; even as it is in all the world and is bearing fruit and growing, as it does in you also, since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth; 1:7 even as you learned of Epaphras our beloved fellow servant, who is a faithful servant of Christ on our behalf, 1:8 who also declared to us your love in the Spirit. 1:9 For this cause, we also, since the day we heard this, don’t cease praying and making requests for you, that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 1:10 that you may walk worthily of the Lord, to please him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; 1:11 strengthened with all power, according to the might of his glory, for all endurance and perseverance with joy; (WEB)

This is another in a series on prayers in the Bible. The last such is here.

In this prayer, by Paul, he is praying that the Colossian Christians will be filled with a knowledge of God's will, and strengthened with "all power." What a reservoir! What a resource!

Thanks for reading. May I, and you, be strengthened with all power, and filled with a knowledge of God's will.

Russell's teapot

Some time ago, a commenter mentioned Russell's Teapot, and suggested that the idea was pertinent to a post of mine. (See Pete D's first comment on this post.) I had never heard of Russell's Teapot, although I had heard of Bertrand Russell, and I failed to look the matter up right away, which I should have done. I have now done so, and am musing on the topic.

The Wikipedia article on the subject quotes Russell's original statement. Russell's point was that claiming that there is a God, with no scientific proof of His existence, is no more legitimate than claiming that there is a teapot, too small to detect with instruments of any kind, orbiting the sun.

But that's not all. Russell said "since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it. . ." I would claim, and I am not alone, that there is a God, but that I cannot advance any scientific proof of His existence. I claim that I have subjective evidence from personal experience; from observing that sin is in the world, yet most people think that sin and evil is somehow unnatural and wrong; and from the Bible, that God exists. I do not claim that it is not legitimate to doubt God's existence. The validity of my personal experience can be questioned. Sometimes I question it myself. Perhaps our notion that the world is somehow spoiled is mistaken. It is possible that the Bible is a fabrication. In other words, the sentence quoted at the beginning of this paragraph does not apply to my belief, or to that of many other Christians. Just because something cannot be disproved, does not mean that it is not legitimate to doubt its existence.

For example, A could assert that witches can fly. B could respond that she has never seen a witch fly, and even doubt that witches exist. A could counter by asking B to prove that witches do not exist. B could respond that witches have not been found under various circumstances. A could, in that case, respond that there are other circumstances, which B has not experienced, in which witches do exist, and fly. It is not possible for B to examine all possible circumstances, but it is still reasonable for B to doubt that witches can fly.

I don't argue, and I don't think many Christians do, that the fact that Russell cannot disprove God's existence is an important reason for believing in God. I do think that the inability to disprove God's existence is a defense of belief in God. Not a strong one, but a defense. I agree that there is no scientific proof of God's existence. But, as I said, I believe that there are other kinds of proofs of that existence, and that it is not necessary to have scientific proof of His existence for me, and others, to believe in God. There are some things that a significant number of important mainstream scientists believe, that, so far, at least, lack scientific proof. These include the existence of the Higgs boson, and of universes that are parallel to our own, and string theory.

Hebrews 11:3 says: "By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible." Verse 6, of the same chapter, says "Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to him, for he who comes to God must believe that he exists, and that he is a rewarder of those who seek him." (WEB -- I'm using the WEB because it is public domain. I can't link directly to a verse in that Bible, because the web site uses frames.) As I understand it, and I may be wrong on more than one level, God offers humans the choice as to whether or not to believe. There is enough evidence, to an honest seeker, to bring about belief, but the evidence must be accepted by faith. Thomas didn't have to feel Christ's wounds to know that he was looking at the Resurrected Lord.

My understanding is that the things that happen in the world, which are the province of science, such as the doings of cells and ecosystems and galaxies and quarks and chemical reactions and photosynthesis and tectonic plates and water drops, are expressions of God Himself. In Psalm 19:1, David wrote:
"The heavens declare the glory of God.
The expanse shows his handiwork."
and in Romans 1:20, Paul said: "For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse." And it isn't just that God is revealed through the existence of created things. As Colossians 1 puts it: "16 For by him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things are held together." (WEB) God, mostly God the Son, made things as they are, and so that they work the way they do. He intimately binds up the test tube, the spectrophotometer, the computer recording the data, the scientist herself, and the means of communicating the results. It's no wonder that the experimenter will not find evidence for God in an experiment.


I also see that there is a sin problem in the world, and in me, and that God alone offers a satisfactory solution, namely the sacrificial death of the incarnated Son of God, validated by His resurrection.


Unfortunately, one thing that helps to keep some people from finding faith in God is that some of us who claim to be Christians don't always live a life consistent with the unselfish teaching of Christ.


One of Russell's great efforts, in collaboration with Whitehead, was "an attempt to derive all mathematical truths from a well-defined set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic." In other words, to prove the legitimacy of mathematics beyond any possible doubt. That attempt, though heroic, failed, with the discovery of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. It is not possible to prove the legitimacy of mathematics beyond any possible doubt. But I use mathematics, and I believe that it is right to do so.

The two, putting math on a completely logical and systematic foundation, and arguing that belief in the existence of God does not make sense, are not the same thing, and not exactly comparable. But, I believe, both efforts were and are futile, even for a man as brilliant as the late Lord Russell.

Thanks for reading. I thank Pete D. for his comment.

Sunspots 299

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

Science: (and The Arts) Vladimir Nabokov, author of Lolita, was also a butterfly expert. Carl Zimmer reports, in the New York Times, that the late Nabokov's once-dismissed speculation that some butterflies migrated across the Bering Strait, and ended up in South America, was correct.

Sports: A college basketball  player recently made 8 shots from half court in  a minute, setting a record with his achievement, according to Wired. The  report has video of the event.

Wired reports on a book about various myths in sports. One such, it turns out, is true. The home team has an advantage, in any sport checked.

The Arts: Spring, from Vivaldi's Four Seasons, accompanies an artist drawing with sand.

Christianity: An essay defending egalitarianism (between men and women) in church leadership, by John Stackhouse.

Image source (public domain)

Young-earth creationist astronomy has a long way to go

Todd Wood is a young-earth creationist, and makes no bones about it. However, he is far from endorsing every argument for the truth of his position. Wood is a scientist, with impeccable credentials, and, in my opinion, his blog is required reading for anyone seriously interested in the problem of origins, and at least interested in supernatural explanations, whether such a reader is willing to accept them or not.

Wood is a biologist, not an astronomer, but he previously criticized two papers on astronomy, in Answers Research Journal, an on-line publication of Answers in Genesis, a young-earth creationist organization, saying, basically, that they didn't explain anything, just reported it. Wood has now written a comment on a new article in the same journal. The new article, which does not explain anything, either, does set forth a list of phenomena which are well explained by mainstream astronomy, and which must, if young-earth astronomy is to become credible, be equally well explained by astronomy with such presuppositions.

Wood commends the new article for its list. It also discusses something that we usually take for granted, that is, what an explanation is, and how to tell if an explanation is really explaining something.

I have my doubts about young-earth astronomy. But the author of the new article, James Upton, seems to have done a good job in setting forth a blueprint for where young-earth astronomy has to go if it is to ever become truly scientific.

Thanks for reading.

Prayers in the Bible: Paul in Ephesians 1

Ephesians 1:15 For this cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is among you, and the love which you have toward all the saints, 1:16 don’t cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers, 1:17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; 1:18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope of his calling, and what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 1:19 and what is the exceeding greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to that working of the strength of his might 1:20 which he worked in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, 1:21 far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come. 1:22 He put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things for the assembly, 1:23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (WEB)

Paul does not pray for the physical health of the church in Ephesus, for their financial situation, nor that they won't be persecuted, nor that they will be effective evangelists. He prays that they might have a fuller understanding of the work of Christ! How often do I pray for that, for someone else? How often does someone else pray that for me?

This is the fourth in a series of posts on prayers in the Bible. The previous post is here.

Thanks for reading. Pray effectively, for the right things.

Happy 3rd birthday, grandson #2!

Our younger grandson began his independent life in a neonatal intensive care unit. If you wish, you can see a brief video of the occasion, here. (To my amazement, that video has been viewed well over 10,000 times.)

We thank God that he is a healthy youngster, now three years of age. He didn't stay in the NICU very long.

We love him! (Of course, we love his parents, and his older brother, too.)

Thank God for grandchildren!

Where the Mountain Meets the Moon by Grace Lin

I recently read Where the Mountain Meets the Moon, written and illustrated by Grace Lin, a Chinese-American author and artist. (New York: Little, Brown, 2009) The book won a Newbery Honor medal, meaning that it was close to winning the Newbery award. (There's a video of Lin discussing the book with Al Roker, of NBC, and five young readers, here.)

The plot is simple enough, although I won't give it away. It has a moral, which is that we should be satisfied with the good things we have, rather than strive to obtain things that others have and we don't.

I can tell you the setting, which is once upon a time, in China, mostly rural China. There are some interesting characters, principally Minli, a young girl, her parents, peasants who have no other child, and a dragon (with no name but Dragon) who is unable to fly.

The main appeal of the book (aside from the illustrations, which are marvelous) is the way in which Lin has made the main narrative a way of having many short stories told by various characters, throughout the adventures of Minli. (These tales are mostly Chinese fairy tales.) The first such story begins on page 4, and lasts less than four pages, indicating the importance of the tales, and their brevity. There are 48 short chapters, and I guess that there is a tale within at least 12 of them, probably more. These tales are all interesting in themselves, and do not detract from the main narrative, but are all tied to it. Lin indicates that she researched Chinese lore. It is unclear as to how many of the tales she adapted from past Chinese literature, and how many she made up herself.

I'm glad I read this book. It was unlike anything else I have ever read, but a genuine pleasure to become acquainted with.

I have also read The Year of the Dog: A Novel, by Lin. It's a good book, partly autobiographical, designed for children to read, about the experiences of a Chinese-American girl who is one of only two in her grade in public schools. Lin uses stories, again, but stories of her mother and other relatives. She also illustrated the book, in the way you might expect a good artist from the elementary grades to draw.

Thanks for reading. Read Lin.

Happy birthday, Mozart!

Happy birthday, Mozart!

Here's a splendid performance of the "Gloria" from Mozart's "Coronation Mass."

Sunspots 298

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

Humor: (or something) Home canning (that's putting food into glass jars for preservation) is making a comeback. People are even swapping what they can at meets for the purpose, says NPR.

Sports: (or something)  An Ohio State professor with too much time on his hands has constructed a Lego model of his school's football stadium, according to Wired (photo included).

Christianity: Weekend Fisher has some great advice on what journalism, guided by Christian principles, would be like.

Image source (public domain)

Sorry -- You have to enter strange letter sequences when commenting

I have had word verification (where a commenter has to enter a more or less random sequence of letters in order to comment) turned off for a month or more. I have decided that I need to turn it back on. Sorry about that, those of you who comment.

I hate to do anything to discourage comments, and word verification does that, but I also hate to deal with "nice site" and other apparently meaningless comments from anonymous users, or spam -- that is, advertisements for products or other web sites.

Please keep reading, and commenting.

Quantum entanglement -- sending information through time

I remember something about the discovery of lasers. The impression was that such devices were large, expensive, and confined to physics labs. Not only that, but they had to do with experimental manipulation of light. How could such a phenomenon be practical? How things have changed! This computer has a laser in its CD/DVD reader/writer, and laser use is very common in North America. There are almost certainly more functioning lasers in North America than there are people in the US, Mexico and Canada.

Perhaps the same development and harnessing of technology will take place concerning quantum entanglement. What is quantum entanglement? The simple explanation is that it means that two particles, separated by large distances, and not physically connected, can, nonetheless, be connected. (See my previous post on the strangeness of quantum physics, in other ways.) This is, I believe, a truthful explanation, as far as it goes, but it does not go very far in explaining what quantum entanglement is all about. I haven't found any simple explanations of quantum entanglement. There is a Wikipedia article on the subject, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article, too. Neither is exactly simple.

The applications of quantum entanglement seem to be, eventually, these: communication over long distances, more efficient storage of information. A recent article in Wired indicates that there may be another, even weirder application, namely communication with the past or the present. Not time travel. (The Wired article's explanation of quantum entanglement is intermediate between my sentence, in the previous paragraph, and the Wikipedia.)

Thanks for reading!

Prayers in the Bible: Job for his sons

This is part of a planned series on various prayers in the Bible. For the previous post, see here.

Job 1:4 His sons went and held a feast in the house of each one on his birthday; and they sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. 1:5 It was so, when the days of their feasting had run their course, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, “It may be that my sons have sinned, and renounced God in their hearts.” Job did so continually. (WEB)

I suppose that the burnt offerings were a type of prayer, or that they were accompanied by prayer. Job was concerned for his family. Could his prayer make it not necessary for the sons to ask forgiveness for themselves? I don't think so, but Job was well-intentioned, and his intercession probably prevented his sons from sinning, at least some of the time. Why didn't Job pray for his three daughters, too? I don't know. My guess is that he did, but it wasn't recorded here.

It's pretty basic, but bears repeating -- I need to pray for my family.

J. R. R. Tolkien: Myth, Morality & Religion

I recently read the book with the name given in the title. There is at least one review available. Purtill, the author, who has written a considerable body of fantastic literature himself (I've not read any of it) has a Wikipedia article, and a web page. (See here for the main Wikipedia article on Tolkien.)

J. R. R. Tolkien: Myth, Morality & Religion (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003) is a fine analysis of Tolkien's writing. The author makes extensive use of The Hobbit, the three volumes of The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, Leaf by Niggle, "On Fairy-Stories" and Tolkien's letters. It was originally published in 1984, and the new release is said to be identical to the previous one, except for a Foreword. That being the case, it doesn't deal with the several volumes of Tolkien's work edited and published by Christopher Tolkien after his father's death. I don't take that as a major problem.

Purtill deals carefully with the topics of the title. He also deals with the question of whether or not Tolkien's work is Christian. On the one had, there is little or no worship in the books. On the other, Tolkien has re-told the creation story, which has put some Christians off. He concludes that the books are Christian, and spells out what that means.

The author writes as much as anyone I have seen on the difference between science fiction and fantasy, and what he says strikes me as correct. He also considers mortality, which Tolkien said was the theme of the books.

Perhaps the most valuable part of Purtill's book is his discussion of reactions to Tolkien by Ursula K. Le Guin, perhaps the most important writer of fantastic literature now alive, and by Tolkien's friend, C. S. Lewis. Lewis wrote fantastic literature himself, and wrote some books and essays on literary criticism. Le Guin has also written excellent works on critical analysis. She states that she is a Taoist, not a Christian. Purtill analyses her criticism of Tolkien, and also compares some of Le Guin's treatment of immortality with Tolkien's. He also compares the fantasy of Tolkien and Lewis, and discusses their assessment of each other's work.

A fine book! Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 297

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

Science: A lot of gas giant planets have been discovered, because they are so large, but a planet about the size of earth has now been discovered, orbiting another star, according to an NPR report.

Wired reports that lemurs seem to have the beginnings of a culture.

Christianity: (perhaps) An organization offers free housecleaning for women getting chemotherapy for any type of cancer. 

Image source (public domain)

Evidence that a new function evolved from an old gene

Biologists have long supposed that new abilities of living things have come about when new proteins, produced by new genes, modified from pre-existing genes, make such abilities possible. The new genes are thought to come from accidental duplication of a DNA sequence, done so that it is passed on to the offspring. Such accidental events are known to have occurred, and thought to have occurred many many times. But documented examples of such a process in nature, leading to a new function, have been rare or non-existent.

A press release from the University of Illinois indicates that there is good evidence for a specific example. The example is that a gene which helps a fish to survive Antarctic temperatures appears to have evolved from a duplicated pre-existing gene coding for a protein named sialic acid synthase.

The press release was published because a research article, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, details the research findings. Since the PNAS does not allow general access to its on-line publications without a price, I have not seen the original work. The PNAS has long been an important journal, and many significant findings have been first disseminated through it. Most likely, this one will join them. It sounds quite important.

Here and here are more comments on the original article.

". . . that you may know him better": Paul's prayer in Ephesians 1

I am continuing a series on prayers in the Bible. The previous post is here.

I have previously indicated, with documentation, that the prayers given, or mentioned, in the New Testament are almost all asking God to strengthen believers. There is almost no prayer for the sick, or for money, or for the salvation of non-believers. One example of such a prayer is given in Ephesians 1. (I am using the World English Bible, which is public domain.)

Ephesians 1:15b . . . I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which is among you, and the love which you have toward all the saints, 16 don’t cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope of his calling, and what are the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to that working of the strength of his might 20 which he worked in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come.

Wow! Remarkable.

Paul tells the Ephesian Christians that he is praying for several things to happen in their lives. He wants them to know about their inheritance. He wants them to know about God's power, which is available to them. Resurrection power! But, it seems to me, the main thing Paul wants is for the Ephesians to have more knowledge of Christ.

The Blueletter Bible allows users to examine several versions of the Bible at once. I have done this, for Ephesians 1:17. Here is how various translators have rendered part of that verse:
KJV: may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him
NKJV: may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him
NLT: to give to you spiritual wisdom and understanding,so that you might grow in your knowledge of God.
ESV and RSV: may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,
NASB: may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him
NIV: may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.
(Other translations, similar to these, are given.)

I like the NIV phrase best: ". . . that you may know him better." What a hope, what a necessity for a powerful   Christian life!

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 296

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

Humor: Katherine eats out, with her family, in a restaurant where you can't see anything.

Science: Carl Zimmer tells us that, under certain conditions, a body in a grave can turn into soap.

A study shows that students learn better if the handouts they are given are not in a plain font like this one, or this one, but in a "disfluent" font, like Comic Sans. Interesting, for sure.

Computing: David Pogue, of the New York Times, discusses how our obsession with replacing our electronic gadgets frequently impacts the environment, and what, if anything, to do about this. 

Image source (public domain)

Malware, viruses, trojan horses, etc.: what are they?

Here's an article, using the Wikipedia definitions, that indicates the differences between the various types of malware, which are trojan horses, viruses, adware, rootkits, worms and spyware.

Watch out for all of these.

Must a Christian hold to young-earth creationism? Albert Mohler vs. Karl Giberson

Some time in 2010, Albert Mohler, currently President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, made a speech, in which he claimed that the only valid position on origins is Young-Earth Creationism. The BioLogos Forum, which disagrees, was specifically mentioned in Mohler's speech. BioLogos has posted a transcript of Mohler's speech, which, apparently, they made from the video version. BioLogos has also posted a response to Mohler, by Karl Giberson, who was particularly mentioned in Mohler's speech.

I have not checked the transcript of Mohler's speech for accuracy. I am assuming that it is accurate, or at least accurate enough to make Giberson's response pertinent.

To summarize Mohler's speech, he claims that interpreting the earth as only a few thousand years old is the only view compatible with the way God meant us to interpret the Bible. That's a serious claim, if true, and deserves careful and prayerful study. Mohler, of course, is hardly the first person to make that claim.

Giberson's response to Mohler has been posted in an interesting way. He poses three questions for Mohler, and you can see these questions, either as they are, or expanded and extended. Just click one of the three questions. (As far as I know, Mohler has not answered Giberson.)

What are Giberson's three questions?

The second one refers to a side issue, but an issue of fact. Mohler misconstrues the life of Charles Darwin, claiming "We need to be reminded that Darwin did not embark upon the Beagle having no preconceptions of what exactly he was looking for or having no theory of how life emerged in all of its diversity, fecundity, and specialization. Darwin left on his expedition to prove the theory of evolution." The history of Darwin, which has been thoroughly studied, does not show this at all. Darwin didn't develop the theory of evolution by natural selection until after the voyage of the Beagle was over. Mohler demonstrates his ignorance, or bias, on the subject of Darwin.

But this is a side issue, not closely related, or perhaps not related at all, to the issue of the interpretation of the Bible's account of origins.

The first question is directly related to the matter of interpretation. Mohler has claimed that evidence from nature cannot "trump" evidence from what he calls the natural reading of the Bible: "We need to recognize that disaster ensues when the book of nature or general revelation is used in some way to trump scripture and special revelation."

In response, Giberson points out examples where most Christians do not take the "natural reading of the Bible as correct." These include apparent Biblical support for slavery, and apparent Biblical support for a sun that moves around the earth. Giberson also relates some history, showing that important Christian people who took the Bible very seriously in times past did not agree with Mohler. Pete Enns, also of the BioLogos Forum, has also answered Mohler on this point.

The third question is on Mohler's belief that the universe, and the earth, seem much older than they are: "But I want to suggest to you that the most natural understanding from the scripture of how to answer that question comes to this: The universe looks old because the creator made it whole. When he made Adam, Adam was not a fetus; Adam was a man; he had the appearance of a man." Giberson agrees, up to a point, but by no means all the way. He writes: ". . . what about stars we observe exploding that are millions of light years away? If this argument is true those stars never existed. To arrange this feat, God would have had to create a burst of light around 10,000 light-years away that would look like an exploding star. This burst of light would just now be reaching us. What would be the point of this? God can, of course, do this but the burden of proof surely has to be borne by those making such peculiar claims."

I don't think Giberson states his argument clearly enough. Perhaps he should have said something like this: To create a universe with so many evidences, from astronomy, geology, genetics, and other fields, all agreeing that the universe and the earth are very old, when this is not true, would be possible for God. But it seems to make God into a deceiver, and also seems to violate what Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:20 say, namely that we can learn about God from studying nature. Mohler, on the other hand, claims that the apparent age of the earth does show the nature of God -- God hates sin.

There is more in these two sources than I have discussed here, including the question of Adam's historicity, and that of whether or not non-human organisms died before the Fall.

There are over 100 comments to Giberson's presentation. I confess that I haven't read them. No doubt they are interesting.

I have previously posted an analysis of the most common theories of origins, giving the strengths and weaknesses of each, and also, on this blog, a statement on the problems with Young-Earth Creationism.

Thanks for reading.

ACTS: Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication

You can see a larger version of this graphic by using it as a link.

All too many of our prayers are asking for something, and, further, asking for ourselves, or our immediate associates. Someone -- I'm not sure who -- suggested that we use ACTS as an acrostic for some of our prayers: Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving and Supplication. It's a good idea. We don't adore, confess, and thank God nearly enough, or at least I don't.

Adoration: praising God for what and who He is. Here are some ideas on doing that.
Confession: stating our sins, and asking forgiveness.
Thanksgiving: thanking God for specific things He has done.
Supplication: asking for things we want God to do, for others (also known as intercession) or for us.

The poster above includes some biblical examples of these types of prayers. 

The last type of prayer is only intercession when it's for someone else.

The verses used (from the WEB, which is public domain) are as follows:
Acts 4:24 When they heard it, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, “O Lord, you are God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them;

I Kings 8:22 Solomon stood before the altar of Yahweh in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven; 23 and he said, “Yahweh, the God of Israel, there is no God like you, in heaven above, or on earth beneath; who keep covenant and loving kindness with your servants, who walk before you with all their heart;

Psalm 51:1 Have mercy on me, God, according to your loving kindness. According to the multitude of your tender mercies, blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity. Cleanse me from my sin.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us the sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Matthew 11:25 At that time, Jesus answered, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you hid these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to infants.

Daniel 2:23 I thank you and praise you, the God of my fathers, who has given me wisdom and might, and has now made known to me what we desired of you; for you have made known to us the king’s mind.”

Mark 14:36 He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to you. Please remove this cup from me. However, not what I desire, but what you desire.”

Matthew 6:11 Give us today our daily bread.

Romans 10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God is for Israel, that they may be saved. 10:2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.

Thanks for reading. I wish I practiced this more. This will serve as part of my series on prayers in the Bible. I expect to use some of these texts in separate posts later.

The first post in this series is here.

A Flickr contact of mine referred me to an article in the New York Times. ("The Right Way to Pray," Sept. 16,2009, by Zef Chafets, who quotes Rabbi Marc Gellman in the following excerpt)

". . . really, when you come right down to it, there are only four basic prayers. Gimme! Thanks! Oops! and Wow! . . . Wow! are prayers of praise and wonder at the creation. Oops! is asking for forgiveness. Gimme! is a request or a petition. Thanks! is expressing gratitude. That’s the entire Judeo-Christian doxology.. . ." These four types correspond to the four in the ACTS acronym.

Added February 3rd, 2014: In Prayer: Does it Make Any Difference? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006) by Philip Yancey, the author says that Rosalind Rinker used these four stages, or types of prayer:
1. Jesus is here (Matthew 18:19-20)
2. Help me, Lord (James 5:13-16)
3. Thank you, Lord (Philippians 4:4-7)
4. Help my brother (Mark 11:22-25) (Chapter 13, "Prayer Grammar")

On February 19, 2015, I added material to the opening section.

The Redemption of Eustace: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader film

I have managed to see The Voyage of the Dawn Treader while it is still in theaters in our locality. I'm glad I did. There were a lot of differences with the book, but the critical point is given by my title, namely that Eustace, a thoroughly nasty boy, repents and is redeemed, in a way consistent with fantastic literature -- he becomes a dragon, then is "un-dragoned." The book and film also agree in having Aslan, the Lion, a Christ-figure, tell Lucy and Edmund that they must learn to know him by another name in their (our) world. I read a couple of reviews of the movie in the mainstream media, and neither of them were put off by these features.

So what about the differences with the book? As in the previous movie, Prince Caspian, there is a lot more graphic violence, and the score is loud. Apparently that's what sells, or what the movie company thinks will sell. There was some violence in the book, but there were also long periods of relative calm, which, among other things, allowed for character development.

Both the movie and the book describe how Lucy, Edmund and Eustace, their obnoxious cousin, are pulled into Narnia through a painting that comes to life, as it were. They tell that Caspian, King of Narnia, is on a voyage in the Dawn Treader, a small sailing ship, to try to find out what happened to seven of Caspian's father's noble friends. They are also exploring the sea to the east of Narnia, which is unknown territory. During this voyage, all of the five main characters, save Reepicheep, the talking mouse, are tempted in various ways. Eustace is transformed into a dragon, and while in that state, tries to be helpful to his shipmates. He also comes to admire and appreciate Reepicheep, which is a great change for Eustace. They both tell that the ship reaches an island where there is a table set with wondrous food, and which island is inhabited by human-appearing stars. (The father star does not appear in the movie.) They further tell that the Dawn Treader eventually comes as close as it can to the edge of the flat Narnian earth, which is near the way to Aslan's country, and that Reepicheep enters that country, Caspian begins the voyage back to Narnia, reluctantly, and Lucy, Edmund and Eustace go back to England, with Lucy and Edmund being told, by Aslan, that they will not be able to return to Narnia.

There are some other similarities between the book and the film, such as an adventure with water that changes anything put in it into gold, but many differences. One such difference is that, in the movie, Caspian must deliver the seven swords of the seven nobles to Aslan's table to defeat the center of evil influence in the islands and sea in this area. The most important difference is that, in the book, there is no such center of evil influence. Each person is, as James put it, drawn away by their own lusts. (There was some of that in the movie, such as Lucy's temptation to say a spell that would make her beautiful above all others, but not as much.)

A number of years ago, I posted a series on temptations in the Narnia books. The post on Dawn Treader is here, and, I believe, covers the various ways in which characters were tempted reasonably well. (One such is in my comment at the end of the post.)

Three final positives about this film. First, Georgie Henley was, again, a splendid Lucy. She showed adoration, character, bravery, envy, and other emotions very well indeed. Second, some of the effects in the movie were very good. The ship was well done. So was the dragon, and Reepicheep, the two-foot tall talking mouse. Third, original illustrations from the book, by Pauline Baynes, were used in the graphics shown during the final credits.

Here's the movie's home page. This is a review by Steven Graydanus, a Christian author, in the National Catholic Register. This is the Christianity Today review. Here's a review by Rebecca Luella Miller, a Christian who runs an blog which is essential reading for people interested in fantasy from a Christian world-view. All three reviews are insightful, and find the movie to be both good and bad, and "less Christian" than it might have been. This is the Wikipedia article on the book. This is the Wikipedia article on the film. Here's my post on the first film of the Narnia series, and here's my post on the second.

Thanks for reading. Read Lewis. See the movie.

Nine Free Programs that should be on Every Windows PC, from Gizmo's Freeware

Gizmo's Freeware has posted a .PDF document, "Nine Great Freeware Programs That Should be on Every PC." The document gives details on how each program works, what it does, and how to install. Check it out.

Sunspots 295

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

Science: National Public Radio talks to a 10-year-old girl who discovered a supernova.

Sports: Wired reports that there was a real Quidditch world championship this year. (And it's not the first one!)

The Arts: Pantone has announced the Color of the Year. (Mostly for fashionable clothing.)
 

Image source (public domain)

"God exists" is a religious claim. So is "God doesn't exist."

Michael Ruse, one of the most important philosophers of science of our time, and a man who does not believe in God, has written an article, in which he asks:

If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim?

The article is well worth reading, and examines some serious questions, most importantly the one raised by the quotation. Ruse has gotten a lot of flak for raising this question, such as in this post by Mark Perakh on the Panda's Thumb, in which the author wrote: I dare to claim that the sole value of philosophy of science is its entertaining ability. I doubt that all the multiple opuses debating various aspects of the philosophy of science have ever produced even a minute amount of anything that could be helpful for a scientist, be he/she physicist, biologist, geologist, you name it.

Other writers on the Panda's Thumb (which is not especially friendly to Christianity) did not agree with Perakh's assessment of the philosophy of science, and pointed to a rebuttal by John S. Wilkins, a philosopher of science. Wilkins does not say whether or not he believes in God.

That rebuttal points out three things:

First, statements like Perakh's claim are, themselves, philosophy, not science. (Perakh has no scientific proof of his statement.)

Second, philosophy of science has been practiced by some pretty influential scientists, Einstein, for one. (Wilkins doesn't say so, but one evidence for this is that the starting points of his special theory of relativity were not determined by experiment, but by Einstein's thought -- they were assumptions.)
Third, "If a scientist claims that science asserts the non-existence of an object that is, by definition, not investigable, like a deity outside time and space, then that is not science, no matter who makes the claim."

Wilkins mentions a post at Thinking Christian, which also refutes Perakh.


There are a number of thoughtful comments on the article by Wilkins, from several viewpoints.

Ruse wrote, in the next sentence after the one quoted above: And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?

I agree with Ruse on this matter. No one should be allowed to say, in a public school science textbook, or in a public school science class in the US, either that science has proved the existence of God, or that science has proved the non-existence of God. Neither is true.

It is important to consider the word "Creationism." Ruse appears to be using it in the sense of "belief in a supernatural creator." If that is what the word means, then all Christians, as I see it, are creationists. However, the word is also used as short-hand for "Young-Earth Creationism." All Christians are not Young-Earth Creationists. See here for an analysis of strengths and weaknesses of different views on origins held by Christians.

Thanks for reading!