I’ve answered the musings of Mike the Geocreationist before here and here. The latest article on geocreationism.com connects Psalm 104:29 to Genesis 2:7. In Psalm 104, the psalmist says that the animals return to dust when they die. From this verse, Mike reasons that the man in Genesis 2:7 was created indirectly from dust through evolution. Instead of being the direct work of God’s hands in his image, as the plain meaning of the text would indicate, God made men and shaped them through generations of evolution.

Two questions for Mike are: is the dust in Psalm 104:29 the same as the dust in Genesis 2:7? And, if it is, does that mean that man is ontologically the same as the beast? First, let’s address the question of whether the dust is the same in both verses. First, there is no question that the dust is the same dust in both verses. Mike didn’t have to go any further in the Bible than the Genesis account itself. In chapter 2, verse 19, the Bible tells us that God formed the birds and beasts “out of the ground,” same as the man.

At first brush, it appears as though man and beast are ontologically the same (cf. Eccl 3:19-20). But if that were true, then why did God judge that none of the beasts were an adequate mate for Adam? Why did God form a woman from the man himself? This indicates that, ontologically, men and beasts are different and intended to be different.

Bottom line is that the act of creating men and the act of creating beasts is kept separate in the Genesis creation story. Evolution just isn’t in the Bible, no matter how many Scriptures get used. But there’s a more important issue underlying this–that is the Atonement. If Adam isn’t the first man, if Adam had ancestors as Mike indicates, then Adam isn’t the federal head of the human race. It therefore makes no sense that Adam’s sin is imputed to us.

If Adam’s sin isn’t imputed to us, then we don’t need Christ’s Atonement. In a previous post, I made the case that mankind is dead in sin. In a future post, I will make solidify that case using Scripture. This sin is imputed to us by our father, Adam, and is atoned for on the Cross by Christ. If Adam isn’t our first father, if he had fathers before him, then the Atonement makes no sense.

Help me out! Join the Josiah Concept Ministries fan page on Facebook!

Atheists like to use the argument that where you grow up determines your religious beliefs. But this argument fails in light of the many people that have converted, such as Masab-Joseph Yousef, a son of prominent West Bank MP Sheikh Hassan Yousef. According to an article on CNA, “Praying that his family will “open their eyes to Jesus,” he expressed love for his enemies and claimed Muslims’ conversion to Christianity is the only way to have a chance for peace in the Holy Land.”

It’s great to see stories like this because it proves that religious belief isn’t always just a matter of where you grew up. Atheists love to simplify everything, but often things like religious belief aren’t as simple as they would like it to be. This story, among many others, prove that it is possible to rise above the teaching of your parents, throw off the shackles of false religion, and embrace the truth of Christianity.

In my hometown newspaper, The [Toledo] Blade, a letter to the editor was printed that I thought I’d share, as it echoes my sentiments:

What has happened to this world? Muslim extremists have reached a new low. Young women have taken the place of young men as suicide bombers, murdering other young men and women and their children. What is even more disturbing is the fact that so-called “moderate Muslims” here in Toledo and around the world are silent. No outrage. No cry for this carnage to stop. No demand that their religious leaders take steps to speak out against this senseless and barbaric killing. Just silence. Just more silence.

It is now time for Christians, Jews, Hindus, and yes, Muslims to demand an end to these horrible and brutal murderers who hide behind their misguided and terrible religious fanaticism. Enough.

Rollind W. Romanoff, West Central Ave.

A long time ago, Rook Hawkins asked for my opinion on a recently unearthed tablet that contained an apocalyptic vision of the death and resurrection of a Jewish Messiah. According to many on the RRS boards, this find would invalidate Christianity. Well, I’ve thought long and hard about this. I don’t think that this tablet is anything to get excited about. Rook and I will actually agree on several points (surprising as that might be).

First, this was “found” in someone’s collection many years after the fact. We have no idea where it came from or how it got there. Already, the tablet has passed through too many hands to make an convincing case for its dating. This raises the possibility of a forgery. Second, if it is real, then it does solidify the fact that the notion of a suffering and rising Messiah was derived from Hebrew Scripture before Jesus ever was on the scene. This makes it all the more convincing that Paul was able to reason with people from the Scriptures about Jesus’ identity as Messiah.

What I don’t think that Rook will agree with is that the use of apocalyptic language suggests a prophecy–the writer wasn’t reporting a historical event but rather offering his opinion of what will happen in the future when the Messiah does come. Either way, the final report on this will be very interesting. But I don’t think it will offer any earth-shaking revelations that will destroy the foundations of Christianity.

In all, having a suffering-and-resurrection tradition already in place prior to the first century doesn’t weaken the case for Jesus in my mind. It strengthens it, and bolsters my faith to know that some of the Jews of Jesus’ day were on the lookout for exactly what transpired. These folks would have readily identified Jesus as the Savior promised in the Scriptures.

Rook Hawkins has taken me to task on calling for PZ Myers to get fired or to resign his position over desecration of the Eucharist.  Before I offer some much prayed-over changes to my position, I will clarify one thing: I have no intention of continuing the blog debate that I started.  The reason being that I’m out of my depth with historical data and Rook will continue to make me look foolish.  I’ll let the real (or amateur) historians take him on regarding a historical Christ.  I’m confident in a historical Christ based on what I’ve read, and that’s all that I need to say on the subject.

Now, let’s get back to PZ Myers.  I have not adjusted my position that he is a bad representative of the university for desecrating a wafer.  To millions of Catholics, that is the literal body of Jesus Christ.  I think that, as an educator, he should be respectful of his students’ beliefs, whether he agrees with them or not.  However, I’m not so sure that what he did was as a representative of the university; I think it was completely personal, as a private citizen of these United States.  As much as Bill Donahue is going to disagree with me, as much as I may offend Catholic readers (Dave Armstrong: admit, you still read my blog just like I still read yours), I’m going to have to say that what he did is free speech.

What I did was overreact.  I did exactly what Myers wanted me to do–I gave him publicity for something that I should have let slip quietly under the rug where it belongs.  Myers is, first and foremost, an attention whore.  I spoke where I should have been silent.  Calling for his resignation or termination was unwarranted.

I should note that there is a significance to the Lord’s Supper, and that I believe in Real Presence, though not the way that Catholics do.  I believe that the bread is a symbol of the body; the wine a symbol of the blood, and that we eat and drink it in memory of him, just as commanded in the Bible.  However, my brother-in-law Nate pointed out to me that a symbol ceases to represent anything when it is used in another way.  Just like a swastika used to represent good luck, but now represents a terrible regime that never should have happened, symbols change their meaning based on the context of their use.  In this case, when the host is desecrated in that fashion, it ceases to represent Christ’s body and becomes just what it is–a wafer.

In effect, Myers desecrated nothing.  I should have recognized this from the outset and kept my mouth shut.