Allen J. EplingTweet
A former teacher of physics and Math, he holds an MA degree in mathematics and the post graduate degree of Rank I in Education. His passion is Astronomy and staying current in Quantum Physics.
Posted 8/21/10 at 9:44 PM | Allen J. Epling
In my attempts to understand the most un-understandable book in the Bible, I have come to some conclusions.
The problem of understanding Revelations is separating symbolism from detail. We know that much of the book is symbolic because Jesus tells us it is in Rev. 1:20 when He says the candlesticks John saw were the 7 churches and the stars are the “angels” of the churches or leaders. Here are some of my "observations", which may change at any time that I get further insight.
Posted 8/13/10 at 2:14 AM | Allen J. Epling
The question of how real was the first man Adam is brought up in biblical discussions often. The argument of the evolutionists is that man came about through evolutionary processes and that there was no “first” man. Biblical believers say that the book of Genesis describes very well how the first man came about. God created him in the garden of Eden. Who is right?
Before that question can be answered it must be asked “who” man is. Is he a member of the animal kingdom that just “developed” intelligence and evolved into the creature we call human? Or is man defined by the Bible and God as someone who has descended from the first man called Adam?
That question may seem trivial, but it is crucial to the argument. What if Adam was not what we call “homo Sapiens” and did not have the characteristics of “humans” around the time of the Garden of Eden, about 6,000 years ago? FULL POST
Posted 7/17/10 at 1:32 PM | Allen J. Epling
In the process of debating religion with atheists, I rarely encounter any intellectual respect of opposing views. I considered why that is, and am still puzzled as to why two people cannot discuss opposing views on a subject and maintain a mutual respect for each other. It would seem to me that if both parties are intelligent, they would recognize the following statement to be true.
I believe the most fundamental right, and freedom, any person has is the right to believe and think what he/she chooses. Whether that belief is logical, accurate, or correct, or not, is irrelevant. Religion, to me, is a philosophical issue, that is beyond question or ridicule. When a person has a philosophical outlook, he doesn't have to prove it or justify it. Aristotle and Plato were not ridiculed for their views concerning what constitutes "reality". That right should be respected by anyone else who understands intellectually why people are different in their outlook. Why then do atheist's even question, or ridicule people of faith when it is a personal issue? The subject can be intelligently discussed or debated, but, seriously, does either side ever change their outlook?
I have to believe they do not understand the above concept or they would show more respect. I believe it is wrong to even try to change a person of faith in their beliefs, if in forming those beliefs, they have become comfortable and influenced most of their life by environmental factors. I know psychologically that to move them out of the comfort zone would create great stress on their psyche. FULL POST
Posted 6/21/10 at 9:27 PM | Allen J. Epling
There are two famous experiments in quantum physics that demonstrate a single point. The outcome of both experiments is not "real" until the person doing the experiment makes an "observation" of the outcome.
In the famous 'Schrödinger's Cat" experiment, quantum physics says that the cat is both dead and alive in a 'probability' state until the observer opens the box and observes the outcome. At that point the "probability state" "collapses" and the outcome becomes 'real'.
In the "double slit" experiment, the outcome is determined entirely by which of two types of measurements the experimenter makes. Any attempt to change the type of 'measurement' also changes the outcome. This experiment has been repeated in many various forms, with the conclusions always the same. A single outcome does not exist until the observer makes a decision as to how to measure the outcome. FULL POST
Posted 6/5/10 at 8:44 PM | Allen J. Epling
I was sitting in a Bible study group, discussing Revelation, chapter 16, when we read verse 3.
"And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea."
I asked the group, "What does the blood of a dead man look like"? Someone said "Well, its probably brown in color". I then asked, "Have any of you seen the aerial shots of the spill in the Gulf? What did it look like"? The group went silent. FULL POST
Posted 5/12/10 at 7:12 AM | Allen J. Epling
We all watch the apocalyptic programs on cable and it is easy to be overwhelmed by all the prophesies of doom and destruction from asteroid strikes, global disease, economic collapse, huge tectonic events, and every other imaginable kind of destruction. If we took these programs seriously we would be convinced that today is the last day before doomsday and we should prepare for disaster.
What does the Bible say about a global disaster?
Surprisingly, it is pretty specific about some kind of apocalyptic event that will take place in a time called the "end of days". Most readers of Revelation are bewildered by the sequence of events described in the "seals", "trumpets", and "bowls" passages concerning events that "must shortly come to pass" on the earth. But Revelation is not the only source of these descriptions. FULL POST
Posted 4/14/10 at 10:12 PM | Allen J. Epling
Christians are divided over the issue of Evolution. There are those that believe Evolution is simply non-existent and didn't have any part in the creation of Man OR animals. There are some who believe that Man evolved through the process of evolution, but that the process was guided by God. To these people, evolution was the process begun by God when he created the Earth and "seeded" it with life. They find no problem with evolution being both a natural and a divine process that worked to create the many species of life on this planet.
There is a third category of believers that believe that everything that is said about evolution in our science books is true, except the creation of man. They believe that evolution proceeded as described through the millions of years, even to the creation of a creature that could be called a "primitive" form of man by science textbooks. However that is where they draw the line. They believe that, in a creation event separate from evolution, a genetically superior man, called "Adam" in the Bible was created from non-living materials in a place called Eden around 6000 years ago. According to Genesis 2:7 God created Adam from the 'dust of the ground' and breathed into him the "breath of life", and man became a living soul.
If we accept the 'biblical' definition of "man" and not the scientific, Adam was the first man. If we let science define who man is, then he began with "Ardi" or Australopithecus, several million years ago. The Bible only recognized man as someone who is descended from Adam, so the creature Homo sapiens is not necessarily "man". FULL POST
Posted 3/24/10 at 12:00 AM | Allen J. Epling
As our knowledge of the universe continues to expand, it would be expected that we would get closer to understanding and confirming that a divine creator was behind the creation of all that we know to exist. We have explained the creation, evolution of life forms, and many other mysteries of the universe in scientific terms. We have always trusted those in the field of science to inform us of new discoveries of truth and facts without the dialogs of how it proves we don't need a God.
Yet I see articles in respected scientific journals concerning why Christians and other people of religion should embrace THEIR interpretation of the data and abandon their faith in a God. As Christians and people of religion, it seems we have been fighting an uphill battle for decades about what to believe in our holy book the Bible, with scientists who seem bent on disproving every word, story, and moral lesson contained in it. It is only lately that I have noticed the science community abandon their usual objectiveness and begin to attack anyone who doesn't see things their way.
If the Bible is truth, then where is the science, which is also supposed to be about truth. FULL POST
Posted 3/4/10 at 11:00 PM | Allen J. Epling
It is disconcerting to see Christians and theologians, when unable to come up with a logical, reasonable explanation of the stories in the book of Genesis, resort to another tool, "allegory". They justify this by depending on subtle changes of wording in the text and use of phrases as proof that much of it is inconsistent.
This could be expected in the earlier part of the 20th century when there was a great difference between what science knew and what the theologians knew. They could avoid having to explain Noah's flood, Eden, and other 'fantastic' tales by retreating to an explanation that did not depend on scientific "facts". To them, it was safe, and easy, to say that it was all an allegorical story that was designed to present a lesson in morals, and not intended to be taken as 'factual' events. This avoided any conflict with science, that they didn't understand, and didn't require very much re-interpreting of the scriptures. Tradition could continue to prevail.
When I was much younger I also struggled with the conflict between science and religion. I loved science but I truly trusted the Bible to be factual. I didn't give up on it. I realized that science "interpretation" as well as religious interpretation is not infallible, and that there was enough uncertainty in both to justify waiting for the truth to come out in time. Time has been very kind to religion. More so than even to science. FULL POST
Posted 3/3/10 at 12:53 AM | Allen J. Epling
One of the great mysteries of the Bible. The flood of Noah.
Did it really happen or was it just a fable.?
The flood is not accepted as historical fact by many historians and scientists because of the many "accepted" claims of the book of Genesis that have been interpreted as 'fact' over the centuries. Perhaps the reason it is not accepted is not because of what the Bible says, but how it has been interpreted and presented by theologians over the centuries. Some of the accepted "facts" are: