1,655 Years of Fascinating History

Dr Andrew Milnthorpe and I boarded a train at our home station in Bracknell for London specifically to visit the London Transport Museum, as trains, in particular, are his speciality. Taking after his father, who can give the name to any insignificant-looking carriage used so nonchalantly by both daily commuters and leisure travellers alike, along with locomotives of both past and present, their love of trains certainly runs in the family.

Therefore, during a chance meeting with Andrew at our local swimming pool - he was about to begin his swimming session just as I finished mine, I suggested visiting the Transport Museum during the following Bank Holiday weekend, after asking me if there's anywhere we can go to together. I watched as his countenance breaking into joy at my suggestion. I knew that I have struck the right note.

And so we spent a good part of the day together at the London Transport Museum, where displays of maps of the developing railway network around London was of greater interest than the trains themselves, although sitting inside an antiquated carriage was intriguing in itself, even if the carriage did not pull out, as my subconscious was expecting, to begin its journey. 

Victorian ladies cabin, London Transport Museum.

The London Transport Museum was by no means the only museum we have visited. Andrew, Alex and I have also visited the British Museum in Bloomsbury, and also the two Natural History Museums, the famous one in South Kensington and the smaller one in Oxford. We also spent a few hours at the Science Museum, next door to the Natural History in London, and some time in the Museum of London located at the redeveloped Barbican district. Just to add here that some years ago, Alex and I spent the day at the Victoria & Albert Museum, also in South Kensington.

So really, what is the museum all about? Isn't it a collection of artefacts made by humans going back thousands of years? And this includes the development of technology, so featured in both the Science Museum and the London Transport Museum. It's all educational, allowing the student to learn something without the keen eye of the teacher wielding a cane, therefore, the museum is often the venue for school trips, at times seen as a treat, instead of being confined to a classroom.

Of course, the collection can be very interesting, intriguing even, or it could be downright boring. It really all depends on individual interest. As for me, I can gaze at a map of the London railway network as it was before the War, for quite a long time, while someone else would walk straight past it, and go for the Victorian ladies dress and men's fashion for that period - the kind of exhibit I would have walked straight past as I ponder on the former possibility for a train to travel from Southampton to Dover via London Waterloo without the need to reverse!

As for Natural History, going by what I have seen over the years, this seems to enjoy universal popularity. Add a computer to the exhibit where the public can play an educational game, and I have seen queues of families with their kids all waiting to have their turn on the computer. As for me, I had my time on these computers, especially in the Natural History Museum in London. All I had to do was turn up during a normal working day during school term, and most of the computers were free and waiting for the next participant. Back then, I even tested the integrity of one device by teasingly pressing the same key when various questions were presented. When a text akin to the words:

You are just messing around. Leave, and let the next person play the game...

appeared, indeed, I felt rebuked, thus demonstrating the programmer's foresight of those who just want to mess around and will not take their learning more seriously.

Perhaps I may have had a point about my messing around. It was in the Evolution gallery, where at that time the statue of Charles Darwin dominated from one corner before it was moved to its present site, which now dominates the cathedral-like main gallery. The computer game was that of Natural Selection demonstrated on two groups of mice, one group dark-skinned the other group light. With the elimination of one group living in an unsuitable environment and thus subject to predation, if anything, this seems to go against evolution rather than support it.

However, it was only last year, accompanied by Alex and Andrew, when, on one sunny Bank Holiday Monday, we visited the Oxford Museum of Natural History. No computers here, nor Darwin's statue, this was an excellent collection of animal skeletons, both extinct and living species. Alongside were displays of fossil marine life, stretching from the Cambrian to more recent periods.

Fossils are fascinating, to me at least. This is where such a vivid demonstration of Noah's Flood is so fervently displayed. These are all features of suffering and death and seems so unlike that of an evolutionary scale where suffering and death are seen as a necessity in organism development. As more and more fossils are discovered, including those of species never seen before, I get the impression that God is trying to tell us something, yet we don't want to hear it, but instead deliberately stick our fingers in our ears to ensure that the truth never settles in our minds.

If only, yes, if only...

If only a bed containing mixed fossils were discovered. Here I'm referring to the Cambrian Trilobite, a fossil of a Coelacanth (a living fossil), several skeletons of Dinosaurs including a Plesiosaur, a Triceratops and a Tyrannosaur. And on the same rock strata and quite nearby, or better still, partially superimposed on the other skeletons, is that of a horse, a domestic cat, and a couple of fully-evolved modern humans. And in the hand of one of the human skeletons, there appears to be what looks like some kind of scientific wizardry, a gadget which features a delicately-cut crystal. And the tail of the trilobite is actually resting on the gadget! What a sensation such a find would bring! Indeed, the whole of the academic world would be left shattered!

Actually, according to one source,* a fossil trail of both dinosaur and human footprints, along with raindrop splash marks, have already been discovered on an ancient Paluxy River bed, near Glen Rose Texas, the rock on which those tracks were found were from the Cretaceous Period, some 100,000,000 years old, the preservation of such footprints indicating a rapid change of the environment enabling such prints to remain preserved. Furthermore, on sites stretching from Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westwards towards the Rocky Mountains, what appears to be human footprints have been found in rocks of the Paleozoic Era (which includes the Devonian and Silurian rock strata) supposedly to be around 250,000,000 years old!

Paluxy River bed, Texas.

The Paluxy River has also revealed giant human footprints, an astonishing phenomenon which suggests the existence of the Nephilim, or giants, of Genesis 6:4. Very similar giant footprints have been found also in Arizona, and near Mt Whitney in California.

 Human footprints testify of "giants in the earth in those days."

It was 1970s geologist Albert C. Ingalls who wrote, concerning these finds:

If man, or even his ape ancestor, or even that ape ancestor's early mammalian ancestor, existed as far back as in the Carboniferous Period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all of the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence for the present at least, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous Period with his feet.**

Science has rejected these finds as fake news, whether the footprints were made by some undiscovered reptilian species, or whether the human or dinosaur footprints were some elaborate carving, or even if the mud surrounding the human footprint had collapsed into a print made by some other animal and partially filled to form a human print. What I find amazing is how respected scientists would go to extreme lengths to deny the truthfulness of the Biblical record!

I find this so sad. Much of that was because of the Lord himself, back in 1973, gave me the option either to believe the Scriptural record or believe in evolution, with no in-betweens. Without hesitation, I chose the former. But since then, I have developed a fascination with the first 1,655 years of human history within the Scriptural frame. That is the time from the creation of our first parents to the Flood of Noah, the antediluvian world.

What was my present home location like as before the Flood? Was it a jungle inhabited by a wide diversity of species, including dinosaurs? Could my part of the world lay below the antediluvian sea, with great beasts such as the ichthyosaur and the long-necked plesiosaur gliding overhead through the primaeval ocean? Or could my area have been part of a city with highly-developed communication systems and technology? It's this last bit which I find so elusive. As one archaeologist once wrote:

The ancient Egyptians must have had wireless. We've been digging here for years and we have not found a single wire.

This is a referral against Erich von Daniken's book Chariots of the Gods? which this writer advocated the invasion of a super space-civilization to our planet around 40,000 years ago, who then tinkered with the DNA of a group of apes to kick-start their evolution towards homo sapiens. I have read the book after I was lent to me by a work colleague in 1975 after he was convinced that the visions the prophet Ezekiel saw was actually a helicopter, and the tabernacle Moses had built was a gigantic radio transmitter!

I never took Erich von Daniken with any seriousness in the way my friend did, but by reading in the Bible about the tremendous longevity these pre-Flood people lived, which is not far below a thousand years, I can imagine how rapid they may have gained scientific knowledge over the course of time, and may even lay down the foundations of the fabulous Atlantis of Plato's fables. Therefore, I find it a pity that no evidence of such advanced civilisation has never been unearthed, or for that matter, discovered deep under the ocean. Considering how wicked the antediluvians were, it comes to me as no surprise that the bodies of every human being were sucked down to the depths of the ocean and destroyed altogether, and every artefact and every building were atomised in the violent torrents of the floodwaters.

But how the landscape might have looked, and how tremendously beautiful the land might have been, I can only imagine, along with a global tropical climate under constantly cloudless skies, with the brilliant multitude of stars shining by night. And all that despite that the ground was cursed because of the entrance of sin.

Fantasy image of the sunken Atlantis.

And yet, it was by no means a safe place to live. Life was made very cheap. Also, an extraordinary phenomenon was taking place at the time. The angelic sons of God were abandoning their place in heaven to marry the beautiful daughters of men (Genesis 6:1-4). The robbing of the wives from their human husbands might have stirred horrific violence from jealousy, rage and hatred. As a result of such an unholy union, babies with only half-human genome were born and grew up to be giants, famous men, men of renown. These guys were unredeemable, not having a full human DNA from both human father and mother. Unless the Flood came, the Messianic Line from Adam to Christ could have been ineffective or severed, having been polluted with a non-human genome.

Other than destroying a wicked, corrupt human race, the Flood played its role in the redemption of mankind by preserving the Messianic Line from genetic contamination. After the Flood, this angelic-human copulation was no longer permitted by God, thus demonstrating yet again God's love for us and his willingness to save everyone who comes to Christ through faith. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*John C. Whitcombe Jr and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood, Baker, 1969, 1975.

**Albert C. Ingalls "The Carboniferous Mystery" vol. 162, Scientific American, January 1940, p.14, and quoted in the above book.

A Shocking Statistic.

It was during the week slotted in between Christmas Day and New Year's Day a few years ago when Alex and I decided to kill time with a day trip to London. This was in the middle of the Christmas season, with factories, businesses, and administration offices closed for up to twelve days altogether, especially if Christmas Day falls on a Thursday. This, together with New Year's Day also a statutory holiday, such a long break had always been criticised by Right-Wing-leaning newspapers "for being out of touch with the rest of Europe who are all hard at work soon after Christmas". And so, tired-looking tinsel, Christmas trees shedding its needles onto the floor around it, and coloured lights with a blinkering bulb or two, all up on both private and public display, reminding us all what time of the year it was.  

Therefore it was no surprise that our train was diverted onto another route as a result of holiday engineering works shutting down our line within the Greater London area. Our train came to an unexpected halt somewhere between Kingston-upon-Thames and Wimbledon stations. Yes Wimbledon, the world famous venue for the All-England Lawn Tennis Club with its annual international Summer tournament, but at this rather bleak Winter time, all courts shut down to a near off-season dereliction. We just sat in the train carriage, all of us, in typical British infinite patience. The minutes added up and still not a single stir from any of the passengers.

Then, probably after thirty minutes gazing at the grass bank outside the carriage window, the intercom crackled into life:

We apologise for the delay. This is due to a personal incident at Wimbledon.

I then muttered to my wife,

A personal incident? A man decides to top himself, causing inconvenience to everyone else.

Although such a statement made in an otherwise silent carriage may sound insensitive, it was due to the frustration caused by the resulting delay eclipsing any feelings of compassion I should have felt for this unknown fellow. Still the minutes ticked away until more than an hour at that same spot, at last the train started on its crawl towards London Waterloo.

This was by no means unique. Only a couple of months earlier, the whole of the Great Western express line from Reading to London Paddington was suspended due to a same kind of incident - "man hit by a train" - which meant that passengers for the Great Western instead boarded our much slower Southwest service to Waterloo, very much like sardines squeezed into a delayed subway train during the morning rush-hour. And I was on board that train to witness it all. With further news of rail-side suicides recurring throughout the ensuing weeks, I could not help asking what is the matter with modern life here in the UK during peace time. In 2015, for example, there were 6,122 recorded suicides in the UK alone, according to Internet data. That is nearly seventeen deaths per day.

But even if 6,122 self-inflicting deaths in a year looks high, it becomes minuscule when up to 300,000 people terminate their jobs in a year due to depression or mental illness. That is about 822 cases a day here in the UK. And that was after being bombarded with this fact among endless broadcasting about mental illness, and the inability of the National Health Service to deal with it.

Mental illness? To be honest, for one already in his seventh decade of life, the term is relatively new in my vocabulary. In my younger days I cannot recall hearing the expression, mental illness. Depression, yes. That word has been around for a long time, and was often referred to what we now call unsettled weather, an area of low pressure. But it also meant a state of low, negative feelings, persistent sadness, often lethargic at work and elsewhere, and a lack of self worth. A problem that has been with us since the dawn of history. But to hear of mental illness being behind up to 300,000 quitting their jobs in a single year in the UK alone, I find astonishing! And not to mention many more who are depressed yet do not quit their jobs.

As far as I'm aware, the workplace is where one earns his living by satisfying his employer. Or at least that was what I did between the years 1968-1980 before setting out on my own. And with the emphasis on education, education, education, a mantra recited by former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair throughout the turn of the Millennium, I have gotten round to believing that good old manual work, which sustained me adequately for nearly half a century, was looked upon as something dishonourable. I have to be honest here. For decades I had a wish to work in an office. To prance around in suit and tie, showing the world how successful I was, and of course - pleasing to my parents. It was never to be. But that did not make me throw in the towel and quit getting my hands dirty. And that goes back to the days soon after leaving school, and never allowed to forget that I was small fry, pushing a broom from eight in the morning, and subject to being teased and be the receiving end of a torrent of smut.

But I do find this huge number of quitters rather shocking. I get the impression that the majority of quitters were office staff. I could be wrong of course. Let's face it, I cannot see myself at a job working for an employer outdoors. Whether its on road works, railway engineering works, on a building site, or refuse collection, no - I must admit - I wouldn't be happy in such occupations, especially in the Winter, shivering under a biting wind or getting soaked in the rain, regardless of waterproofs. At least as one self employed, I was in full control of the situation, and successfully managed 35 years of window cleaning, including getting my hands blue in the freezing cold bucket of dirty water, and a biting northerly wind at a housing estate resembling more of a ghost town than a living community. Although on days like these I might have on occasions gone home early, yet I had never quit before the time.

And then as one using his hands to earn a living, there always has been "the grass is greener on the other side" ethic when it comes to imagining office work. Tales of bullying bosses, unseemly department managers and even traitorous colleagues constantly trickle through the Media, but that has never convinced me on what the office atmosphere is really like from the perspective of a manual labourer - until the recent news. The world of work does not look to be so rosy for the better educated than I have always perceived. 

Yes, I am amazed, really amazed. As I have always perceived, to throw in the towel was something the British would never do, being as stoic as their reputation demands. I was surprised indeed. Has society changed that much since the late sixties when I entered the world of work at the deep end? And all this talk about our "Millennial Generation" fresh out of university and reputed as spineless, as often reported, who cannot take a mild rebuke from the supervisor without running off like a spoilt child, and then demand "equal rights" on the same level as the more experienced seniors. Hmm. Try demanding that when I was a skinny teenage runt!

It was while these news bulletins of mental illness were filtering through the TV into our lounge when I came across a poster in Facebook with a growing thread of comments growing underneath it. The forum is set to public, so anyone on Facebook can see it. The opening poster asks a question whether love is conditional or unconditional, that is, between man and woman, or even on religious, gender, racial, or social norms. Typically, I emphasised the unconditional love of God, especially to the Christian believer, with the assurance of Eternal Security. It didn't take long for a friend of mine, an Arminian, to discuss his point of view for a forfeitable salvation based on the faithfulness of the believer rather than on the grace of God. It was an interesting discussion, without any falling out with each other (phew!) But if there is a pandemic of mental illness sweeping this country (or any country, worldwide) then there is this desperate need for the unconditional love of God to be realised.

The near-universal opinion of mankind is that if there is a God, whatever form he might take, then there will always be a degree of lifelong faithfulness needed to get into his good books. Or in other words, to earn, or at least play our side of the deal in order to achieve eternal life, whether its on earth, in heaven, paradise, or some form of eastern nirvana. The world's salvation demands some form of human co-operation. That is the general opinion of the vast majority of mankind, the atheist included. Then there is the free gift of eternal life given by God to the believer through grace alone, without any effort from the believer. And once gotten, it can never be forfeited or lost. Otherwise it would not be a free gift at all, but probational - or a "maybe salvation" - taken away or lost if the believer fails to live up to expectations. 

The general rejection of God by the masses may be rooted in this idea of a "maybe salvation". Such may inspire fear of eternal punishment, and even creating hostility towards God, but I tend to prefer that this "maybe salvation" leads to apathy - one couldn't care less, and stays away from what they believe is organised religion, with their thinking that this is the way to appease a fickle God - if such an entity exists - then it is all a waste of time. Why not engage in Science, and especially Darwinism, now held as absolute proof of the reality of Science against false myth of religion with its fickle God who is too demanding, along with a fairy tale book containing stories of a talking snake, a rebuking donkey, and records of turning sticks into snakes, a worldwide flood, and other silly stuff of religious mythology.

Which is all a smack in the face against the real reason why we are here. We are not the product of evolution together with a large dollop of good luck. Rather, we are here to partake in the glorious love already shared between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If instead we are suffering a pandemic of mental illness, then something must be seriously wrong. Just like hunger, I guess. If the lack of food and nutrition result in illness and death through starvation, then mental illness, rather than caused by being too stressful at work, may indicate that we are not all there - there is something missing - and that is complete union with our Creator and Redeemer given freely through grace alone.

God has created us to enjoy in our partaking of his love. We are designed to be one in Him, living eternally in his presence. Having rebelled in Adam, and therefore inheriting a sinful nature, there is absolutely nothing we can do in ourselves to get back to God. Adam and Eve tried by sewing fig leaves together to make aprons. Religion by self-effort. It turned out to be so useless that God totally ignored these garments without even an acknowledgement. Instead, the blood of an animal had to be shed in order to clothe them. It was the whole work of God, without any of their effort. This was the forerunner of the Atonement made by Jesus Christ.

We cannot earn our salvation. Therefore we cannot lose our salvation either. We cannot earn, we cannot lose. The receiving of salvation is through God's grace alone. It's a free gift entirely on Christ's expense, there is nothing we can add to it. But such wonderful truth is veiled from all unbelievers, therefore attributing their origins from evolution instead of a Creator. Then we are aghast when reports of a mental illness pandemic is reported. What we need is not a better work environment. What we desperately need is the reality of the unconditional love of God. 

On The Table, Not Underneath It.

Of all the blessings of retirement, alongside time spent on gym workouts, swimming, Starbucks, and jigsaw puzzles, is taking long walks in the morning. I am very fortunate where I live. Rather than in a city, where sidewalks are hemmed in between buildings on one side and constantly roaring traffic on the other, instead our back garden gate opens onto one of a network of off-road footpaths, on which I can walk for miles without ever encountering traffic. A good length of the walk passes through woods as a day-hike trail, or in Queen's English, the Rambler's Route, which is also the ideal path for dog-walkers and an occasional off-road cyclist. 

And a perfect occasion for meditation. As with other times, thinking about spiritual things, which is high on the meditative agenda. Like the moment I had a vision of a dining table covered with a white tablecloth and adorned with many good things. This has come as a result of asking myself whether on this blogging page I put too much emphasis on the grace of God and neglecting the part about the works God has planned for us as believers. Perhaps I can be accused of "easy believism" - a label I am prepared to accept. Because in reality there is no other option when it comes to salvation. It can be rather alarming when a man inspired by the Holy Spirit writes that for anyone who keeps the Law perfectly - then stumbles slightly at just one point - is guilty of breaking the whole Law. Blimey! What hope is there for any of us otherwise?

Like the true story someone once told me back in 1979. These two fellows from our church flew to America for a holiday during the Summer of that year to stay at the home of the host they knew. On one particular occasion, the host was driving rather fast along the freeway with his two guests when he was stopped by a police car.

"What was the speed you were driving?" asked the officer.

"Er sixty, I think."

"And what is the legal speed limit?"

"Fifty miles an hour." the driver answered sheepishly.

"Indeed. That is why we are giving you a ticket. By the way, what is your occupation?"

"I'm a post-grad student."

"Huh-huh, and what are you aiming to be?"

"Er-ha-hum, I am studying Theology."

The driver received his ticket and had to pay his fine. Despite his calling, he had broken the whole law, and therefore appeared in Court alongside thieves, murderers, fraudsters and other transgressors. He broke the whole law by one minor offence. And that is regardless of how much theology he was learning and how many times a week he prayed in the college chapel. He broke the law and a penalty was demanded by justice. Or for someone else to pay on his behalf. If that did happen, all he had to do was to accept the atonement on his behalf and he will be free from the penalty of that particular offense. Before the substitutionary payment was made, the driver could not work to earn his reprieve, because the offence was committed and a penalty was demanded. After the payment was made, justice was satisfied and the offender could not add anything else to make it more satisfied, neither could he work to avoid undoing the pardon he has received.

Throughout my forty-plus years as a believer, I have come across sermons and writings about what Jesus had spoken about in Matthew 18:21-35. It's about the unforgiving servant. Arminian Christians had used this parable as proof-text that salvation can be lost if a believer refuses to forgive the offence committed by a fellow believer. The story is about a king who was owed ten thousand talents by one of his servants. The servant couldn't pay it back, so he fell on his knees to plead. He was forgiven and set free from his debt. Now this guy should have been so happy to have danced through the whole palace, even hugging and kissing his fellow servants. Instead, he found someone who owed him the equivalent of a few quid, and instead of releasing him as he had been released, he had the poor fellow thrown into prison. The other servants were distressed over this, and reported back to the king. The master then had the first servant thrown into prison to be tortured, until he paid back all that he owed.

But this story does not teach the loss of salvation as many would believe. For starters, nothing about the Gospel is mentioned. Nothing about salvation or the redemption from sin and the receiving of eternal life. Nothing about regeneration. Also, no mention about being adopted into God's family. Instead, there was a ruler whose servant owed him a huge sum of money. That was all. One very important point appears to have been overlooked, even by post-graduate preachers and writers. That is the servant was released from his debt, not redeemed. There is a big difference between the two. It was the king's own choice purely for the servant's benefit. As everything else stood, the debt remains unpaid. Not long afterwards, the servant was forced to repay, because no substitutionary payment was made. The story is a world away from the tale of some rich relative stepping forward to pay on the servant's behalf in full redemption from his debt. 

We can now thank and praise God for sending his dear Son Jesus Christ to make a substitutionary payment on our behalf by dying on the cross, buried in a tomb, and raised to life three days later. By believing this in our hearts, we are forever acquitted. The debt of sin owed to Infinite Justice paid in full. As Paul wrote afterwards: if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9). And John backs this up: that everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...(1 John 5:1). This is not a chicken-or-egg issue. Confession can only come out from a heart belief.

And here is where I find to be the greatest source of Eternal Security. Unlike the king forgiving his servant for the servant's benefit (and a financial loss to the king himself), God has redeemed us for his own sake. In other words, the glory, honour, and majesty of God is forever tied to our redemption. It is the risen Jesus who gets all the glory, as beautifully narrated in Revelation chapter five. The glory of God to the entire heavenly host is the reason for once saved always saved.  

I can therefore ask: Can we sin, that grace may abound?

Answer: Yes we can. And we do.

But Paul does not ask that question. Rather, he asks: Shall we sin, that grace may abound? (Romans 6:1). 

Answer: By no means! 

And I love the way Paul would have spoken as an English gentleman as depicted in J. B. Phillips Translation  - What a ghastly thought!

The two questions are quite different. Because in reality, we still sin, even after redemption. That was why John the apostle wrote that anyone who says he is without sin is deceived, the truth is not in him, and in effect calling God a liar (1 John 1:8). But we have the power to choose not to sin if presented with a definite choice (as opposed to spontaneity). Instead, living a righteous life as a believer is pleasing to the Lord in the sense that such living is glorious to God in the sight of all men.

Hence the vision of a well laid dinner table while out on a morning walk. I tried to reason out the vision. A table is a board supported by four legs. That is, the traditional school desk type of furniture. Then I thought about the Cross of Christ. A cross has four stems radiating from the point where the two beams meet at the joint. These correspond with the four legs, which can also symbolise the four Gospels, each narrating the crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The board is the eternal life which the gospels offer, the gift of salvation itself. On the table top is a white table cloth. It is a brilliant white covering, free from any spot or blemish. This is the righteousness of Christ. Finally, all the utensils represent the works done by the believer. There are all types of articles on the table: a silver lampstand, delicate china dishes and serving vessels, pots and cutlery made of stainless steel, but unfortunately an unwashed wooden carving board has also found it way to the table, greasy and unsightly.

All the items on the table serve one purpose, to contain food and liquids for the benefit of those sitting at table. None of the utensils, dishes, or cutlery are there for their own benefit. They are there for the benefit of the diners. I this is where I connect the vision with our Christian lives. We live for the benefit of others. It is worthwhile noting that nobody puts any items under the table. They will be of no use there. The table is supported by its four legs, and has no need of further support by anything else placed underneath. The whole furniture will not benefit whatsoever if things are piled under it in an attempt to further or strengthen its support. At worst, the table may become lopsided, allowing everything on it to slide off. Works done in order to "remain saved" has no value to either God or man. In addition, none of the items on the table itself contribute to its structure. The top will always be supported and held in place by its four legs. And that is true whether there are piles of dishes on it or nothing at all. Salvation is not dependent on our works. 

But God is very particular on how a Christian should live his life. It is all about unbelievers seeing the glory of God in our lives so they too may be converted and believe. Jesus did say that all men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another (John 13:35). Since God himself is love, the only way that unbelieving mankind can see this love is through us. And through this love for one another and also to them God will be glorified.

Adam and Eve - Historical? You MUST be Joking!!!

It was my intention to write about the truth of pre-Abrahamic Scriptures, as this was on my mind for the past week. The idea was stirred in my heart after the Media delivered report after report of the riots which at first broke out in Tottenham, North London, after a man was shot dead by Police. The riots then quickly spread across London, then into various provincial cities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. Along with the rioting, shops were ransacked and destroyed and merchandise looted.

Then only yesterday I came across this article in the Saturday's Daily Mail newspaper. Written brilliantly by A.N. Wilson, this columnist believes that the basic reason for the decline of our society is based on the breakdown of the family unit which, he writes, was sustained throughout history by a bedrock belief in the truth of religion. He praises Muslims, Hindus and Jews for allowing their faith to bind families together, yet let out a blast particularly at the Church of England for wringing her hands while congregation numbers dwindle. He then lets rip on the academics, particularly on what he calls "the nuttier fringes of the chattering classes" for leading the nation away from belief in God and the Bible's truthfulness. Two people he names: Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, both having written books debunking Divine Creation and the early history of the human race for the theory of Evolution. They present a very convincing argument in the name of Science that we are here as an end result of a long process of organic evolution covering a time span of around 200,000,000 years. At the same time, these two are convinced that religion is a poison to the fabric of society.

Thus faith in the Bible has been severely knocked, particularly in the early chapters of Genesis. If the Bible is likened to a vessel, say a pail or large bowl, to have the truth of the early chapters of Genesis called into question would result in a hole at the bottom which would render the vessel useless for holding water. Likewise, the Bible has been rendered ineffectual as a book for spiritual and moral guidance. It has become a book for fanciful stories and myth, at best these myths provide some hidden truth on how one should behave, but remains totally insufficient in historical and spiritual content. Yet the Bible, particularly the book of Genesis, contains the very essence for a stable, crime free society - the institute of marriage and the family unit: father, mother and children brought up in a godly manner. Yet our academics, as A. Wilson rightly comments, are responsible for our nation's moral and spiritual decline.

So in this article, I will try to show the historical truth of the early chapters of Genesis, much maligned by the academics, and how it applies to us today.

It is in the first chapters of Genesis where the institution of a man and woman bonded together in a marriage covenant had its origins. Marriage between a man and a woman began with that of Adam and Eve, and has been ongoing ever since, even to this day, whether the Bible is believed in or not. If the Bible is just a book of mythical fables, then why does history itself testify the importance of marriage? Even to the extent that the Church of England itself had its beginnings over the dispute between King Henry VIII and Pope Clement VII over the King's wish to divorce his first wife, Queen Catherine of Aragon.

In this article, I wish to spell out the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis, and to do this I need to write two separate blogs, this one and the one to follow, in it I will deal with the Noachian Deluge.

In 1973, when I was young in the faith, a man only a couple of years younger than me approached and asked:
"If Adam and Eve had sons Cain and Abel, who was Cain's wife?"
At that time I was stumped. He was better informed of the narration than I was, simply because as one new to the faith, I only read the story recently. Furthermore, the same question was asked several times by different people in different places.

In the account, we are told that Adam was created from the ground. He must have been created as an adult with full brain powers, for he was able to give names to every animal which passed him by. Each species were a pair, male and female. When Adam realised that he had no mate of his own, he felt incomplete in himself, and God was able to see this. Thus God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep while an operation was performed - exactly the same kind as performed in hospital theatres today where the patient is put under anaesthesia before an operation is carried out. A rib is removed from Adam's body, itself a living thing, and from it God created a woman who is to become Adam's wife and mother of all living.

Adam and Eve, by Michaelangelo, Sistine Chapel in Rome

The supernatural creation of both Adam and Eve as well as a talking snake which tempted them afterward are all easily debunked as a fanciful myth simply because none of these things had ever occurred in our lifetimes. We never experienced any talking animal, let alone a snake! But that does not mean that it couldn't have happened. Why not? Yet the snake has kept on saying the same words for millennia! As we shall see.

The Edenic Lie is closer to reality than we care to believe. The temptation the snake used were twofold, first that God was a jealous liar in declaring that they would die if they ate fruit from a specific tree. Secondly, the snake offered to exalt their status from the one they were already in (the crown and pinnacle of Creation) to one of divinity, with knowledge of what's good and evil, if they would just eat the fruit. In short, eat - and become gods, full of knowledge.

Our quest for education, knowledge and becoming gods are in all of us. It is like this as an individual, a family, group or nation. Hitler and his Nazi Party provides a good example of national superiority. Just as he wanted to bring his Reich into the rest of Europe, including the UK, he also believed in the lie that the Jews were an inferior race to his, and as a result, ushered in the Holocaust, with the needless slaying of six million Jews. It is interesting to realise that Hitler's slaughter of the Jews was the snake's attempt to prevent the Jews in returning to their own land to form the new State of Israel which, in turn, would eventually bring the return of its Messiah and the end of the snake's power.

Just as Adam and Eve disregarded God's commandment to abstain from eating from that particular tree in the belief that they will be exalted, so too the Edenic Lie, as with Hitler, is in all of us. We are more than happy to disregard God and his commandments for the quest of becoming gods ourselves. The theory of evolution, which denies the Biblical record of Creation, is but one proof of man's strong desire for the gradual climb towards divinity.

Therefore, this disregarding of God's commandments for personal exaltation to divinity makes up the threefold nature of sin, what it really is. First, sin is a rejection of God's Holiness. This includes hate, murder, adultery, blasphemy, lying and many other sins. Secondly, sin is a rejection of God's leadership with the desire to lead our lives our own way, independent from God. Idolatry and pleasure-seeking may be classified as this. Thirdly, a rejection of God's provisions where pride in self achievement may play a role in this, along with stealing, dishonesty and greed.

After our first parents fell into sin by eating the fruit and disobeying God's commandments, God made a promise that the woman's seed shall bruise the snake's head, a way of announcing total defeat for the snake. Also the snake shall bruise the seed's feet, which indicate that the battle will not be easy, but will itself involve death of the seed. Further action is also demonstrated with God slaying an innocent animal to clothe the couple. Therefore innocent blood was shed to cover their nakedness, just as the blood of the innocent Lamb was shed to atone for our sins. This was of contrast to the aprons which they made from fig leaves soon after they fell. Aprons made from fig leaves defines Religion, the attempt to reconcile oneself to God by self-effort. When the beast was supernaturally slain and the couple clothed, God totally disregarded the fig leaves. It is worth of note that Adam and Eve did absolutely nothing in gaining their new clothes. God did everything. No one can be saved and be reconciled to God by self effort, not even the smallest made by man. The seed of the woman is, of course, Jesus Christ.

We now see Adam and Eve expelled from the Garden of Eden and Eve becomes the mother of Cain. Then after this, a sibling is born, Abel. We are told that after a period of time (but we are not told how long) both Cain and Abel set up altars. Cain's sacrifice, based on self-effort, was rejected by God. Abel's, based on faith in the Promise, was accepted. In a furious rage, Cain slays his younger brother, whose blood soaks into the ground. Then having received his judgement and punishment from God, we are told that he departed from the Lord, knew his wife and begotten a son, and went eastward to the land of Nod, and there built a city, and called the city after the name of his son, Enoch.

Taking this narration at face value, it's no wonder why skeptics ask, "Who was Cain's wife?" For here we read of only four characters: Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. Abel was killed, leaving only three people on earth. So we see Cain, after the murder, pleading with God: "...that everyone who finds me will slay me...(Genesis 4:14). Everyone? With just his Mum and Dad sharing the whole land? And how on earth could he build a city by himself. It does not make sense! It is the next chapter which gives some answers, and I'm quite surprised to be asked, "Who was Cain's wife?" if only a little research was needed to solve this problem.

Here we read:
And Adam lived 130 years, and begat a son of his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth. Just earlier, the narration tells us that Adam and Eve fathered a son, Seth, to replace Abel, because Cain slew him. (4:25). Therefore we can dismiss the idea that the murder of Abel took place a mere twenty years after Creation. It was more likely to be closer to 130 years after Creation. This was the reason Seth replaced Abel as the father of the Messianic line. Originally, the Messianic line began with Abel, but the snake through Cain tried to have this line cut off before the Messiah arrived to bruise his head. The snake, of course, is the Devil.

So we can conclude here that during the 130 years between Creation and the birth of Seth, many other children were born to Adam and Eve. This would have been the fulfillment of the first command God gave to the innocent, unfallen couple. "Multiply and fill the earth and have dominion over it." (1:28). Not to have children during the next century of their existence would have been totally absurd! We have no idea how many children Adam fathered between Abel and Seth. But let us assume it was thirty. 15 boys and 15 girls. This would give Eve a rest period of over three years between each pregnancy. We assume that along with Cain and Abel, two baby girls were born. This would give Cain a wife straight away. He would have married his own sister, not only acceptable but a necessity in those days. If each of the thirty other children (i.e. 15 couples) had eight offspring each, this would raise the population to 152 people. And that's a very conservative number. If each of the 120 grandchildren of Adam (60 couples) had eight children, the population would have risen to 480 great grandchildren, plus 120 grandchildren, plus 30 children, plus two original parents, would equal 632 people. If each of the descendants of Adam's sons had much more than eight children each, and there is absolutely no reason not to be the case, the population would be much higher. So by the time of Cain's murder of Abel, it might have been possible that the population could have reached into the thousands.

Therefore it all makes sense. At the time of the murder, Cain had reason to be afraid of revenge, even from his own descendants, but more likely from his nephews and great nephews and nieces. As for building a city, this was probably on the banks of the River Euphrates (not the present river of that name, but the antediluvian predecessor). With the help of his relatives, the city might have started as a few houses along the river bank. But over the next thousand years or so, it could have grown into a sizeable city, perhaps like Ninevah, which took three days to explore. The city of Enoch could have been much larger, perhaps the size of Greater London or Los Angeles. After all, it took the last few centuries for London to grow to its present size.

To conclude this article: The narration of the early chapters of Genesis is perfectly historical, and we can see the effects of this to this day. From the dawn of history the institution of marriage between husband and wife and raising children is not only Biblical, but necessary for the survival of civilised society.

Maybe if our academics promote the truthfulness of Scripture instead of spending their lives debunking it as fable folklore, most likely the riots of last week may never had occurred.