Creation, Evolution, and Genesis
CP Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s).

Allen J. Epling

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

Observations on Revelation – Part 1

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.

  1. The judgements of the “Trumpets”, and “bowls”, are not to be taken as successive, but parallel or concurrent, descriptions of the same events. Just as the four gospels of the NT are not successive, they each tell the same story, but from different perspectives. Examples are, Trumpet #3, corresponds with Bowl #3, concerning with rivers, and Trumpet #2 corresponds with Bowl #2, and is concerned with the sea turning to blood. The other judgements fall in this pattern too as #6 in both have to do with the Euphrates, and #4 has to do with the sun in both. Interestingly, in #7 in all of the Seals, Trumpets, Bowls, and Visions, the last prophesy has to do with the end of all things such as a “new heaven and new earth”, “final judgement against Babylon”, “the harvest”, and “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord”, etc. In some way, maybe all the visions and prophesies are parallel descriptions of the same events but from different perspectives.
  2. Many bible scholars believe in “codes” and secretive language in the book but no one has forwarded a consistent interpretation of how to read it. I would like to offer my “suggestion” for some of the “coded” wording for consideration. Any attempt to assign meanings to certain phrases and statements will be of necessity, speculative and probably wrong, but if no one attempts, no progress will be made.
    1. Whenever the book refers to “1/3 of the earth”, “1/3 of the seas”, and “1/3 of man” I believe it is referring to the “western hemisphere”. I came to this conclusion because the land area of North and South America constitutes about 1/3 of the earth’s land mass. When this phrase is used it doesn’t necessarily mean “all” of that area is destroyed, but that everything in that area is affected. The phrase "The third part of the sea became as blood" actually means, "The sea in that part of the world looked like blood". The phrase "The sea" doesn't indicate "which sea". There are many seas in the world, but I believe it refers to "a" sea in the "third part of the world".
    2. The use of the phrase “angel” refers to events or objects that follow a path through the atmosphere. Even though they are be described as being performed by an angel, the “event” always involves something coming down. It could refer to artificial satellites as well as missiles. The phrase “loose the four angels of the Euphrates” may refer to 4 “missiles” in that region being “loosed to destroy a third part of man”. The missiles are considered “angels because they move through the air. The “third part of man” could be referring to the US. Any such missiles would already be aimed and prepared for a time when they would be launched. The phrase “for to destroy” doesn’t necessarily mean that they were successful but their “intent” was to destroy.
    3. We have already seen how the “sea will turn red as blood” from the oil spill in the gulf. If many oil rigs at once were suddenly destroyed by some means, this prophesy would come true very accurately.
    4. The use of the phrase “bottomless pit” should refer to a volcanic eruption. The ancient people of John’s era believed that Satan came up from the center of the earth by way of these eruptions and was unleashed on the earth by this means. The prophesy that after the millennium he would be unleashed again for a short while may be the foretelling of another catastrophic eruption. The “throats” of volcanoes are truly “bottomless” and reach down to the mantle where there is no definite structure.
    5. As has been long recognized and pointed out by many, the referring of anything as “coming” or “rising” from the sea, usually means coming from the masses of people on the earth. The “sea” refers to the people.
    6. When references are made to “1/3” of the sun, moon, or stars, this is referring to the length of the day in which they are not seen, not the actual destruction of those objects. A smoke or darkening of the sky could hide the sun or moon for 1/3 of the normal time they would be seen. When volcanic eruptions have occurred in the past the air has been so polluted that the only time the sun could be seen was at noon when it shined through the thinnest part of the atmosphere.


Posted 8/13/10 at 2:14 AM | Allen J. Epling

Adam, How Different Was He?

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

Form Vs Substance: Religion Vs Science?

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

Is Life a Computer Simulation?

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

Are We Seeing Signs of The End?

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

Was The Yellowstone Event Prophesied?

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

Does Evolution Allow for Free Will, or Does My Computer Have a Soul?

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

Will Science Ever Prove or Accept the Existence of God?

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

Is The Book of Genesis Just a Myth?

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

Was Noah's Flood a Myth?

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:


load more