I've been going through Genesis again. I particularly like this book, and if I haven't already said so, I'm quite convinced that the available evidence best fits a young earth, but I may differ from some other young-earthers out there. I was thinking today I might get into my understanding of the science behind that, and some of the steps I take on my road to that conclusion. Also, I feel like I've been writing a lot about things I don't know these days. I feel like I floundered through my past few blogs.... I'm not an expert on this topic either.

I'm tempted to just post links and references to some of my favorite "summarizing" lectures... I'll do that here, but in case you're like me and you'd rather have things explained to you in brief and all in one place, I'll also explain myself in text. I'm not going to go back and watch the lectures to make sure my information is correct; I'm just going to explain myself as I currently understand things. You're getting "Zac" here, not anyone else necessarily. This isn't intended to be a scholarly article.

Here's a good lecture by Bahnsen on evolution. Some of his points are dated, but in general it's still relevant (I hope you'll excuse the background music. I really hate when youtubers do that):

Here's the beginning on a well conceived, though perhaps poorly produced, documentary on creationism. Pretty sure the rest of that is available on youtube if you follow the links:

I also want to recommend "Is Genesis History?", the netflix documentary. I skimmed through the bad reviews, and the ones I read seemed mostly to be frustrated that it only presented creationism as offered by creationists. I honestly can't imagine why that bothers them, though, considering that for 12 formative years of our lives in America we're fed nothing but Darwinism as offered by Darwinists in school, and anyway the movie is about creationism! [...thinks about it some more...] oh I get it, the title is misleading. Well, considering how readily available the other points of view are, I still think the movie is best as it is.

OK, now onto my personal thoughts etc.

When I have a discussion about science or "the evidence" with atheists, they tend to throw key words at me. For example, "what about the big bang?", "what about the fossil record?", "what about the layers of the earth?", "what about the polar ice caps?", and "what about carbon dating?", etc.. The problem is, neither me nor the people I talk to are experts in the fossil record, the polar ice caps, the geological layers, or the big bang. So after the first challenge, even if I actually do know a good answer for it (and I suppose I do), it's not as if either of us have the ammunition necessary to meaningfully discuss it, so they just present the next keyword! The most frustrating thing about it in my mind is that they present these topics without explaining them, as if I should just already know that the thing they are talking about is so obviously against Christianity that I have to present a wild convolution of the available data to frame my worldview. That's actually what they may think, though, and I can't blame them for acting consistently with their worldview, especially because of the way schools indoctrinate us against Christianity these days. Praise God for parents who receive their kids home from school and ask, "what did you learn?" and then say, "well, you know, your parents believe differently from what you were just taught. Let's talk about the different perspectives." -- because that's how you foster critical thinking.

It's the same in formal debates on the sciences. You can't expect a single person to be an expert in every field of science, so it's extremely frustrating to me when I see Christians go to debates where they're hit with rapid-fire broad questions about entirely distinct fields of study, and as soon as they fail to answer one of the questions all the atheists in commentary jeer at them as if they've decidedly lost the debate. Atheists suppose they don't have to prove anything simply because they read a textbook written by more decorated atheists who agree with them.

Anyway, for the above reasons, I think the epistemological argument is the best and most valuable argument for everyone to consider, scientist and layman alike, because it cuts through all the BS and asks, "are your premises actually capable of bringing you to these conclusions?"

[/RANT]

OK, now I'm going to give my understanding of the events surrounding creation, and I'll try to hit each of the keywords I listed above while I'm at it. Also, I intend to point out some of the stuff that confuses me. Atheists complain to Christians all the time for presenting "God of the gaps" on issues where Atheists are ignorant; I nonetheless expect Atheists to present to me "Atheism of the gaps" in areas where I'm ignorant. What I present here isn't a perfect explanation of everything; rather I hope that it leads you to conclude, as I have, that there are perfectly reasonable interpretations of the available evidence which do not necessitate against Christianity. In fact, I suppose that these interpretations are "more reasonable" than the ones taught in schools, primarily because of the philosophical argument I've alluded to.

In the beginning, God expressed his will, and the universe exploded into existence.

Here's where I differ from some other young earthers, and I hesitate to post this opinion because I secretly wish that a Hebrew grammarian would correct me. I think that the Bible leaves room for a wide gap of time between Genesis verses 1 and 3. During this time, it makes sense to me that God spun the planets into alignment, crashing them into one another over the course of who-knows how many years. This is where my understanding of physics also breaks down, because it appears that God, again by means of His will, manifested light on the first day, after creating the universe. So, what boggles my mind is how he created stars without creating light.

The earth was formless until God brought dry land to surface on the earth. This was what we call Pangaea; the single giant continent. I personally suppose it was probably a bit larger than just "all our current continents stuck together", and I think we'll see why in a bit. The earth was internally full of warm water at the time, causing a mist to rise up from the ground all around the land, and there was a lot of water in the atmosphere, creating an exceptionally fertile climate.

God created all the creatures, including mankind, in the 5 days following his decision to create light. I guess this is a good time to talk about the fossil record. So the issue is that there is no fossil record. I mean, even Darwin said that a major issue with his theory was that if we really did have billions or trillions of years of evolution, we should be kicking around intermediate fossils in our back yards. What we have instead is a systematic lack of fossils in between major groupings, and that interbreeding is still possible among all species in each major grouping  (See Ken Ham's version of the evolutionary tree of life). It is the common ancestor from each of these evolutionary types which populated the ark (getting ahead of myself).

I know that certain scientists have gone out in search of human/ape missing-link fossils and found tiny fragments of bone, which they then extrapolated into exactly what they were looking for. Truly, I don't know much about their methods for extrapolating. Here's my understanding: even if they did an excellent job of extrapolating, what we now know is that as people age far beyond 100 years, their bones begin to take on features similar to those we look for in "missing link" bones. (As it happens, the Bible records a time when people were living that long.) And even if it's not a 600 year old guy, we do have people with weird skulls alive today. The existing "evidence" for evolution is sparse, questionable, and even if they did a good job, it can still be interpreted just as easily by creationists in favor of creation, without much stretch of the imagination. The latter being the case, why do I still assert that it's questionable? It's because it is. The scientific method explicitly calls for us to attempt to disprove our own hypotheses. I don't see atheists (or many Christians, for that matter,) doing that at the moment.

Alright, moving on from evolution, all the creatures are created, sin enters the world, cool stuff happens in society, and then we have the flood. Genesis 7:11 says that water came up from underground and came down from above ground simultaneously.

So, all at once, in the span of about 190 days, Pangaea split and the entire Atlantic ocean came up out of the ground. The outer edges of the continents were grinding against the rest of the earth, producing a nice seam of fault-lines surrounding the pacific. As the oceans receded, they washed over the land repeatedly, depositing soil and producing the wide, thin layers we see in the earth. The dramatic changes in the earth caused a quick-onset ice-age over a big chunk of the planet, and water was pulled up into ice-caps (another thing I don't understand). At this time, however, a big portion of the Atlantic ocean was still warm (because the water had recently came up from under ground), and the warmth from it was blown eastward over the middle-east. When the water receded enough, this warmth allowed for a warm patch right were Noah's ark landed, enabling him to exit the ark with the animals and begin farming easily.

So I think the only things from my list which I haven't covered are the ice caps and carbon dating. As I understand it, atheists are saying that the ice caps prove that the earth is old because they are very thick, and we can see that the ice gets more dense as you go downward, and we can measure the snowfall in a year, and use that information to extrapolate millions of years of snowfall into a few inches of deep ice. The problem here is that ice doesn't keep compressing indefinitely, so you can't keep extrapolating downward and putting more years into each inch as you go down, and so it's just as easy for me to say that it all froze in a year and then compressed under its own weight as it is to say that it all froze in a million years and compressed under its own weight.

And finally, carbon dating. It doesn't work. There have been multiple studies where scientists used modern methods for carbon dating to measure the age of still-living animals. They discovered that the animals were tens of thousands of years old! The whole process depends on assumptions about the levels of various chemicals in the atmosphere at the time which we predetermine that our target must have come from, and those assumptions are based on models of global history designed to support the methods which employ the assumptions.

Alright, that's it for tonight. I hope this helps someone out there. The most important thing I'd like to tell a reader here is that God is good, and we are designed to experience joy and peace in His presence. He is so good and perfect that it is impossible (and even dangerous) for any person who has ever done wrong in their life to approach him and act on our design. So, since everyone has done wrong, God's son volunteered to come down, become a human, live a perfect life, and then receive the penalty for our sins on behalf of all who believe in him. If you believe, then pray to Jesus and tell him about it! The Bible says that we can talk to Jesus as a friend, and so you don't have to be shy or stumble over your words; just tell him that you want that relationship, that peace, that forgiveness, and that joy.

"It's close to 11."

More fun and profit today. I did my second "issue" topic practice for the GRE. I feel like I did a lot better this time, but I definitely still have room for improvement. Chowon gave me a 5 minute warning, which was very helpful. Also, this time, before I wrote, I made a small outline of points. What I found on writing the outline was that, in effort to write the points briefly, I made them too effectively brief. It was after realizing that my essay was too short that I started filling in example stories. Even after that, I had some extra time and thought it was too short, so I wrote the last point off the cuff (the grades given to examples in the study book are proportionate to the length of the example essay). That last point basically became my conclusion, because I forgot to think about how I would conclude it while I was writing my outline. So outlining skills are something I need to work on.

For the record, I don't know if my examples are true. (They are true to the best of my recollection). For the actual test, I'm debating using an entirely fictional set of examples, because the issue topic is not supposed to measure my knowledge of the topic itself, but rather just my comprehension skills. Also, if I use purely fictional examples, I will be less likely to accidentally write something which the judges will know to be false.

Another thing, I'm doing these practice tests at night. It might be best for me to do my next one in the morning sometime to better emulate my state of mind during the test. I have always written better at night. Anyway, here's the work:

[PROMPT]
Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
[/PROMPT]

[ESSAY]
By using the word, "dissuade", rather than a softer word, such as "discourage", the statement seems to imply that it is the responsibility of the educational institution to successfully remove the desire from students to pursue fields wherein they are unlikely to succeed. I'm curious to know how the author of this statement would feel about a hypothetical tenacious or stubborn student who will not be dissuaded.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no proven methods for reliably identifying a person's aptitude for success in a specific field of study during school. Therefore, the burden placed on the educational institution by this statement is one which no educational institution can hope to carry. On the contrary, there are notable examples in history where institutions have failed to assess a person's aptitude. Einstein, for example, famously failed in his elementary math classes.

Furthermore, psychologists have spoken against the practice of using aptitude tests to pidgeon-hole students and force them into fields of study which they may not enjoy. Notably, Dr. Rorschach said that the practice was not only impossible but unethical. Rorschach knew that enjoying a field is a component as great or greater to a persons success than being measurably most apt in the field. The sentiment is identifiably true by means of cursory introspection. If I were compelled to perform a task which I did not enjoy, then the task itself would discourage me from performing it. Paarticipation in the field would include negative reinforcement, which we learn from Pavlov will certainly dissuade me from performing it at all. Having thus been dissuaded both from performing tasks which I enjoy and from performing tasks which I do not enjoy, I cannot imagine that a person would be found optimally productive in society.

The statement issues the responsibility of the institution as a negative task, "to dissuade". The task is therefore by implication achieved by discouragement. Were it rephrased to say, "a responsibility to persuade students to pursue fields of study in which they are likely to succeed", I would find myself more inclined to agree. However, it seems to me that success itself is a positive experience sufficiently tied to a task to motivate its own pursuit. Students therefore compel themselves to do what they are good at by means of trial and error. If success itself not sufficient enough to compel someone to pursue it, that person will not be easily dissuaded from pursuing a lesser success. So, even if it were the responsibility of the institution as it says in the topic statement, the best and only tool institution has to perform its duty is one which is at work without the intervention of the institution.

The responsibility of educational institutions is therefore to educate students by giving them tasks related to different fields. By these means the institution invariably gives students ample opportunity to succeed or fail in a given field, because it provides opportunities for students to meaningfully interact with both the field. These natural successes and failures will prompt the student in the direction wherein the student will be most successful, because the student will naturally be inclined towards the field which he or she enjoys and in which he or she has experienced some success. The balance between pleasure and aptitude is best found in the student's natural behaviors, and hitherto cannot be measured and forced by an institution in any better way.
[/ESSAY]

That's it! See you guys next time!

Now, me and Chowon are going to watch another episode of The Man in the High Castle~~~~ Ooooooooo~~ (spooky sounds)

I've got a couple of topics to touch on today.

Got extra sleep last night thanks to Chowon's good self-control. We usually spend too long awake, and I'm terrible at caring about bed time. In addition, I got my haircut and I love it. Chowon's skills are improving regularly, and this time it seems like she got a little artistic without deviating from my typical style. It's good to see her expressing creativity that way; she's a real blessing.

We also got to see the baby jumping around in our most recent ultrasound today. At 12 weeks since conception, baby 믿음 is looking healthy and energetic in there. We got to see his little facial profile, and he looks like a regular person. Chowon and I both agreed that this last ultrasound made the whole pregnancy experience seem much more real. Seeing the baby touching his/her face humanized it in my mind somehow; not that I ever thought otherwise, but it's a different feeling.

On those lines, I wanted to approach the topic of abortion. I heard on the radio (KJZZ Phoenix, 2018/07/23 at around noon) that abortions have been on the decline lately due mostly to increased availability of contraceptives (I think the talk show host seemed to imply that contraceptives in this category were nonabortive by later referring to the "abortion pill" as a type of abortion), but also to decreased availability of abortion services in general. They cited that there are many people who end up giving birth because they didn't have reasonable access to an abortion clinic, and that the great majority of people seeking abortions did so for financial reasons. The radio show I listen to does their best to seem unbiased, but the reporters themselves seem to be personally left-leaning, and it shows occasionally. I tend to be suspicious of survey results which support the ideas held personally by the reporter, but when they delivered the results of a survey of existing statutes and political representation at the state level I felt inclined to believe them. The report was that 22 states have existing "trigger laws" which would cause abortion to become illegal immediately if Roe.v.Wade were overturned, the governments in 4 states are politically composed in such a way that they are likely to quickly pass laws making abortion illegal if Roe.v.Wade were overturned, and abortion is likely to remain legal in 19 states, with the remaining states on the fence.

Roe v. Wade, like the Scopes Monkey trial, was a legal victory for the minority in the U.S.. It had to be done through the supreme court, because it would be impossible to have passed such laws through the proper channels at the federal level; the majority of states are opposed to it. Likewise, when Scopes was finalized, schools seem to have suddenly began teaching children in ways which were contrary to the beliefs of the majority of adults at that time, and thus contrary to the beliefs of their parents (multiple studies confirm this; check out Gallup and Pew research, as they have some very interesting studies on the percentages of Americans who identify as Christian, and recent Gallup polls also include information such as the number of Americans who believe in a young earth, etc). In both cases I am convinced that the laws would not have been able to pass by via normal/legal use of the legislative process.

So let's talk a little about this "legislative process". If you have a moment, I recommend looking up the story of Joshua Glover. Relevant states rejected the supreme court on the grounds that their attempts to pass laws as "established precedent" were acts of "undelegated power". The states' statement to that effect was a deference to the tenth amendment, which implicitly forbids the federal government (including the Supreme Court) from making laws which are binding on states in areas which have not been expressly delegated to the Fed by the constitution elsewhere. And in general it is the role of the judiciary to interpret laws as they exist. So a trial which can be resolved by state law should not be passed on to the supreme court, and in the case where there is no law a defendant is considered innocent by default (because we do not penalize people either retroactively or in advance of a law being passed), but the legislature is then prompted to produce a law if there is need of one. This is stuff I learned in grade school.

The script of the Roe/Wade trial is available to the public. It's a lot of text, but the arguments are readily discernible to the extent that the rulings in Roe v. Wade were based on an antiquated understanding of the nature of a species (as well as some outright misinformation about the frequency of back-alley abortions, among other things). Even atheist scientists now acknowledge that a fetus, having all of the biological characteristics of a human, is fundamentally human, and there is no law other than the above noted precedent which maintains the ruling. So why are we in this place where we have 26 states desirous to make abortion illegal, but none of them do so? I suppose I know the answer second hand. I've watched some interviews with state legislature in certain states in the eastern U.S. (credit to Apologia Studios for the interviews). If those legislators are to be believed when they talk about their own inhibitions, (and if I remember the interviews correctly -- I hope I'm not messing this part up -- I'm open to a fact check on this question, but it should be noted that my preceding argument doesn't depend on the following information) then the precedent remains in-force in those states because the states fear that they will lose funding from the federal government as response to them rejecting it.

That last bit sounds like a conflict of interests to me. Here we have states which are financially dependent on a body which is exercising undelegated authority over them, and are thereby compelled to act against the consciences of the majority in those states. That is at least the case if the majority of representatives in a state is an accurate representation of the majority of voting persons in that state, which as I see it is the only assumption that the American governing entity has liberty to make (it is designed to be so, but it is admittedly not a perfect system).

So where does this funding come from? That's were my answers stop. I don't know what funding is in question. I'd love to find out, (and I'm pretty sure the same interviews discuss it), but then what can I do about it? Part of me wants to go "schedule a meeting to sit down and talk with my representative", but having moved around so much as a military kid growing up I don't feel attached enough to any state to really say "You're representing me". I've never voted in a local election. Furthermore, I have serious conscientious objections to the entire structure of our government at large. I guess the contents of this paragraph amount to personal issues that I should work through on my own.

Before I close this post, I had another topic I was thinking about going through in detail: it is Hinduism. I've had the pleasure of a few conversations with my two practicing Hindu friends, and I feel like my argument is solid, because they straight-forwardly explained to me that, at the level where we were discussing, their religion requires a rejection of logic. To save space, and to keep myself from wasting words, the argument is issued most eloquently and effectively by Isaiah in chapters 40 through 50 of his book (special attention to 40:19-24, 44:8-20, and 48:3-5). Having thought a bit about it, I really don't think I could explain it better, so read those 10 chapters.

"Tell them you'll put a lien on their rent until they come fix your sink"

So, for fun and profit, I'm going to post some of my practice work studying for the GRE on my blog. The way I'm planning to do it is: I'll read a promp from the issue or argument pool here and Chowon will time me. I'm going to write it out in Notepad, because the GRE environment won't have spellcheck, and then when I'm done I'll paste the prompt and my essay here. Chowon will then be my reviewer and criticize my essay.

Before I paste this in, I want to be the first to say that I feel like I totally botched it. We didn't do a 5 minute warning at the end of my time slot either, so I stopped without a conclusion.... anyways, here's the essay:

[PROMPT]
To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
[/PROMPT]

[ESSAY]
The statement at first appears to be a fine rule of thumb for analyzing a society, but it depends on a vague and unwritten assumption about which characteristics are most important to a society. If we allow If the most important characteristics of a society are social, we might find that major cities tend to contain representation for almost every social subgroup in a society, but analysis of the city alone might not yield accurate information about the proportions which those subgroups comprise in the society at large. If we hope to learn about the driving economic powers in a society, we might find that the main cities are the largest single economic movers in a society, but when compared to the society as a whole we may rather see that the cities represent a small proportion of the total economy. I would like to think that the most important characteristics of any society are those traditional behaviors and idiosyncrasies which connect the society to its past and make it totally unique. I find that cities do not best represent those characteristics, and therefore I do not agree with the statement.

Since the advent of the internet, we've seen countries become increasingly integrated into a global culture. America now finds itself with Korean pop stars on the top of its music charts, for example. Cities, being the industrial centers of a nation, are most exposed to other cultures by means of trade and exposure to international travellers. As a result, what we find in a city is not always the truest expression of the characteristics making a society unique, but rather we find a mix of adapted features with characteristics otherwise unknown to the society. The statement, then, seems to devalue cultural distinctives, in favor of a society's compromises.

Different countries have historically expressed internal and international trade in broadly different ways. We can contrast the feudal economy of ancient Japan against the tribal economy of ancient Israel; the procurated economy of imperial Rome against the socialized economy of modern China. These economic differences were and are representative of deeper cultural understandings about human equality, personal ownership, and objective sources of authority. A cursory evaluation of Japan yields that the feudal lord owned his subjects by the sword, and was considered superior to them; in Israel, people were defined in part by their tribal membership, and attempted to keep themselves and their property within the tribe and thereby among equals. In Rome, local societies determined their own means of distributing ownership of property and wealth, but were required to pay taxes to Rome; in China, we today see ownership of production generally focused in the hands of the government and upper class.
[/ESSAY]

I ran out of time at the end. I was trying to drive towards eventually trying to make a point that the unique characteristics of the above societies were most punctuated outside the city rather than inside it. Looking back, I feel like I definitely should have taken a different angle. BSing like this is not a strength of mine.

Anyway, there it is! I'll post the next one here as well, and hopefully we'll see improvement over the next few weeks/months.

Me and Chowon did our first "GRE Study Day" this past Wednesday. It was a lot more fun than I expected. The test study book recommended that I get some study prompts from their website and try to write about them within the 30 minute time limit. It normally takes me about 45 minutes to write, check, and become content with a blog. I think that snuggling and reading together (such as we did on GRE Study Day) is my favorite thing to do, but it seems like we rarely have the capacity to do it. My eyes are usually too tired to read a book.

Over the past week or two, there have been several instances where I thought of something that I really wanted to blog about, but I haven't had time for it. Today I'm blogging while Chowon hangs out on the couch. Usually I blog while she's asleep or when I'm out alone somewhere... but I really don't have any time these days to do stress-reducing activities alone. 

That's not to say that I'm feeling stressed in a totally negative way or anything. I mean, I am stressed, but I think there are several kinds of stress, some better or worse than others. There's physical stress; stress from lack of sleep or time; stress from worry; or stress from significant loss. These days it seems like I have exactly enough time to do everything that I absolutely need to do in a day, and no more. (I'm including the valuable time I spend with Chowon in that "need to do"). I have been getting about 6 hours of sleep, before subtracting interruptions, which is very tolerable, and I could get more if I decided not to decompress at the end of the day with a show or something (usually about 40 minutes). I make up for that sleep on the weekend anyway. I'm usually subject to about 5 minutes of involuntary meditation before I can get out of bed, and it gets longer if I am more tired. These days I'm at about 10-20 minutes of straightening out my thoughts between sitting up and standing up. I feel stressed because I think that if I treat my day as if I have time to spare, then I'll miss out on something important, and right now everything is very important.

I used to listen to all kinds of music to feel cool while I did stuff. Now I feel like I don't have enough energy to feel cool, and I don't want much music that doesn't encourage me and help me relax. So that leaves me with basically just calm Christian music. I'm listening to some of my brother's recommendations: hillsong, housefires, etc.. It's all good stuff.

I usually don't sit down and blog just to write about my life or my day. Usually I have a message to give or something long that I want to say, but I can't think of anyone who I suppose would be terribly interested in listening to all of it. Over this past week, I wrote a poem, adding to it a little every day during my morning meditation. Since I suppose things should be named, I call this one "Lamppost".

----------

I am a lamppost dimly flickering

Passersby might lose their way

Lamplighter, I see you coming

in the light of the other lamps

You will make me bright again

----------

and I heard a song with an excellent verse (this is by Young Oceans):

"I've been gasping for a breath

In a torrent of ambition

I'm drowning but I'm thirsty

And this river, this river is deep but it's dry"

So ever since I read Heb 9:9, it's been on my heart to take a deeper look into the word "age" as it is used in the Bible. I don't mean "age" in the sense of the number of years a person has been alive, but rather I mean "age" as a near synonym to "era".

I did a word search for both "age" and "era" in the ESV, and found no instances of the word "era" anywhere in the ESV Bible, and no applicable instances of the word "age" in the OT. These are the applicable references to the word "age" that I found.

Matt 12:32; 13:39,40,49; 24:3; 28:20
Mark 10:30; 13
Luke 18:30
1 Cor 2:6,7,8; 3:18; 10:11
Gal 1:4
Eph 1:21; 2:7
1 Tim 1:17; 6:17 
Titus 2:12
Heb 6:5; 9:9; 9:26

Before I proceed, I recognize that the relevant Greek word, aion, which is used in most of these passages is not the word I'm studying. Also, that there is another word, kairos, which is used in some of these passages, which might also make for a relevant study. Both Greek words are used in a lot of other passages; I think the above list nonetheless represents a fairly thorough sampling on the topic.

OK, now let's connect the dots. We're going to talk a bit about the temple here. Keep in mind there are two common interpretations of the passages about the temple (as far as I know). First, that the temple in these passages is the second temple (Solomon's temple); this is how I see it, because of the conversation in Matthew 24, because all these books were written before the temple was destroyed, and because it's easy to see that the temple of that time was a representation of the first covenant. The second way of looking at it is that the temple described in these passages is Ezekiel's temple, which was never built; this second interpretation enables us to see ourselves in "this age", and to put "the age to come" in the future, which belief for some reason (I assume by deductive necessity) tends to accompany a method of interpretating Revelation with which I strongly disagree. I further disagree with this second interpretation, in part because of what I read in the section below, labeled "Christ and the end of the age", and in part because of my reasons for agreeing with the first interpretation.

Now, onto what the verses say:

==Two ages==

So we can see from Matt 12:32 and Eph 1:21 (most clearly) that there are two ages in question, "this age and the age to come".  Eph 1:21 tells us that Christ is superior to all others in both ages. 1 Tim 1:17 says that God is the King of the Ages, plural, (both/all ages). There are other verses which I chose to leave out of my list, which talk about past ages, indicating that there may have been more than one age prior to "this age".

==Sin==

 Matt 13, 24, and Mark 13 indicate that at the end of the age, ungodly people will be thrown into hell, and the righteous will be saved.  Matt 12:32 indicates that blasphemy of the HS will not be forgiven in either age, which seems to mean either that it is possible in "the coming age" to blaspheme the HS and not be forgiven for it, or that people who are not forgiven for blaspheming the HS in "this age" will remain in their state of being unforgiven in "the coming age".

==The temple and end of the age==

We see from Matt 13, 24, 28, Mark 13, and Heb 9:26 that "this age" is about to end. Matt 24 indicates that a sign that the end of the age is near will be an abomination in the temple, and that the end of the age will be accompanied by the destruction of the temple.  Heb 9:9 and context says that the temple and OT priestly rites are symbolic for "the present age", and seems to further support a link between the destruction of the temple and the end of the present age.

==Christ and the end of the age==

We read in Heb 9:26 and Gal 1:4 that Christ "came at the end of the age to do X, in order to accomplish Y", where X is "appear on earth and die as sacrifice", and Y is "put away sin and deliver us from the present evil age". I broke it up like that because I think that the cause/effect structure is easily missed in Paul's complex sentences. To paraphrase another way, Christ "came at the end of the age", and "delivered us from the evils of the present age" by "offering himself as a sacrifice". So, I read this as saying that Christ brought about the end of the age by appearing and dying as sacrifice. That means that the age ended back then, and it supports the idea that "this age" is the old covenant (temple) age, and "the age to come" is the new covenant (grace through faith in Jesus).

==Preparation for the end of the age==

We see in (again) Matt 13, 24, and Mark 13, that there will be tribulation at the end of the age. 1 Cor 10:11 says that the punishments on Israel in the OT were warnings to those who were to experience the end of the age, to not fall away when times get tough. Hebrews 6:5 warns that we cannot expect to win back to repentance those who fall away after experiencing all the good things of God. We see in Titus 2:12 that the grace of God sanctifies the elect. 1 Cor 2:6-8, and 3:18 indicate that the wisdom of "this age" is not useful in the age to come, and that we need spiritual wisdom. 1 Tim 6:17 says that wealth from "this age" is unreliable, and that all should depend on God for providence.We read in Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 that people who have experienced loss in "this time" for the sake of God's name will receive back a hundred fold in this time, with persecution, and eternal life in the age to come.

==The age to come==
Matt 13, 24, Mark 13, Heb 9:26, and Gal 1:4 describe entrance into the age to come, for the elect, as a rescue. Mark 10, and Luke 18:30 tell us that the age to come brings with it eternal life. Eph 2:7 tells us that God raised us up (past tense) with him (Christ, referring to the resurrection), so that in the coming age (future tense) he will show us immeasurable riches of his grace. Finally, Heb 6:5 indicates that some have "tasted the powers of the age to come", which seems to refer to manifestations of the Holy Spirit, identifying that these powers are reflective of the age to come.

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

So, based on the sections on the temple and Christ and the end of the age, I find that "this age" refers to the age in which the author and immediate audience lived, that is the age wherein the temple still stood and Jews still made sacrifices there. The Bible repeatedly references the time of Jesus's death and the destruction of the temple by calling it "the end of the age"; and so I feel I have no choice but to conclude that "this age" ended with the destruction of the temple. The advice for preparation for the end of the age seems like good advice for an incoming tribulation, which is the abundantly well documented experience of Christians around the time of the war with Rome. Then, the age to come is the age we live in now (because it doesn't make sense for us to live in "no age", and it makes even less sense for Jesus to have failed in ushering in the age to come).

The implications of this are, in my mind, that the time when Jesus separated the wheat from the chaff has already taken place, and continues to take place now. That means I was wrong about that stuff about Sheol, Gehenna, Death and Abraham's bosom (from before), because that would only have applied to the interim period between Jesus's resurrection and the destruction of the temple. That is to say that if people die and are not Christian, then they go directly to hell. Whereas, eternal life for the elect starts at their second birth. This also implies that a lot more of Revelation has already taken place than what I previously estimated.

Furthermore, it means that "the powers of the age to come", which I have no idea how to interpret unless it means manifestations (gifts) of the Holy Spirit, are active today, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit chooses to manifest Himself, because they are the "powers of" the age we live in now.. I honestly have no idea how that works; maybe it's a study for another day.

Alright, to conclude, I want to point out that this is just an outlet for my thoughts. I'm not a Biblical scholar, and I hold no degrees in Bible stuff. I'm 100% open to the idea that I'm wrong, and there are videos on YouTube of me admitting defeat in debates about scripture to prove it. If I'm wrong, I would love for someone to tell me. In the meantime, I'm going to continue diving in and venting my thoughts wherever I find an outlet, or here.

p.s. on the trinity from before, I thought about it some more, and I think it's worth mentioning that, rather than saying that Jesus is the complete expression of God and meaning that Jesus is the only expression of God, I feel like in light of the Father's Voice (distinct from Jesus) manifesting at Jesus's baptism, it's maybe more accurate to say that the complete expression of God is about Jesus. This, in other words, might be to say that God always talks about himself. That's true of anyone if we say that all expressions reflect the inner character of the expressor...

Anyway, goodnight.

"Samson the Christian"

Happy birthday, America!

So marriage is awesome, and sanctifying. I've learned a lot about God through my relationship with my wife, and I'm learning and growing every day. One thing I noticed is that in my relationship with Chowon, sometimes we tell each other things, hoping (of course) that the other person will hear and understand what we are saying at face value, but also secretly hoping that the other person will learn the underlying pattern of thought behind what we're asking. An easy example could be when one of us asks something like, "would you take out the trash?". The question carries a hope that the other will see the wisdom in what is being asked, so that our desires will be unified and we will mutually care for the same important issues (for example, "the trash stinks, and it's better to not live in a house that stinks"). That's kindof a silly example, but I think that kind of communication is really common in any relationship. (for the record, me and Chowon are pretty well unified around the idea that taking out the trash is my job lol).

This is a pretty abstract connection, but the reason I brought it up here is because I've been going through Hebrews lately, and I think that this hope, that a person will not just get the information but will also get the underlying principle, is present in Hebrews. The author of Hebrews famously writes, (I'm paraphrasing), "Let's stop eating baby food, going over the basic messages about Jesus's death and resurrection over and over. Let's graduate to eating meat, and learn the deeper parts of God's message to us."

So then the author of Hebrews (I think it was Paul) talks about this relatively insignificant character in the OT: Melchizedek. He's mentioned like 2 or 3 times in the entire OT, and we know almost nothing about him. He's a non-jew (gentile?) king and priest of God, who lived before the priesthood was established, before Israel was a nation, who blessed Abraham, and who received a tithe from Abraham. His name means King of Righteousness, and his kingdom's name means Peace. He is not recorded in any of the carefully documented genealogies of the OT. We read neither about his birth nor his death. Without a word-searching tool, Paul seems to just know every mention of him in the Bible, and he extracts everything we know about the person. As we know, Hebrews proceeds to compare various aspects of Melchizedek's life to Jesus's life, really drawing out the meat of scripture from those few details available about Melchizedek. 

The information itself (about Melchizedek and his symbolic ties to Christ) is very beneficial, and without a doubt the writer of Hebrews wanted to deliver that information to us. However, I think there is a deeper message here. Why choose Melchizedek over all other OT details he could have explored? He later indicates that he has a lot of other things to say about the temple and Levitical practices, but chooses not to tell them in this book (Heb 9:5). Why spend so much time on this obscure reference? Besides the obvious answer, which is for the sake of the information itself, I think it's because the author of Hebrews is demonstrating to us a pattern of thinking that he hopes for us to employ when we read the Old Testament. He was able to draw so much meat out of an information-starved character like Melchizedek; how much more meat should we be able to pull from the other characters in scripture, about whom much more is known? Every character mentioned in the Old Testament (and the Bible at large) is a feast waiting to be eaten!  

When Paul tells us, "Let's graduate to eating meat", I am sure he didn't mean, "Let's graduate to me spoon-feeding you meat", and I'm sure he didn't mean, "Let's graduate to my letters being your only source of meat". I'm sure he meant, "Go hunting! The scripture is a rich forest, full of fat game" (and notice, the scripture he references is the OT).

So let's not neglect the OT. I look at the state of Christian knowledge about OT Jesus, and it seems we've left God's redemptive stories to be interpreted by Atheists. How in the world did the OT, which is FULL of declarations about how God is loving and gracious (Psalm 145:8, and Exodus 34:6-7 to name two off the top of my head), become known as a description of a wrathful and uncompassionate God, as opposed to the somehow-different NT God, despite our frequent reiterations that God is unchanging? I submit that it's because Christians have neglected to teach the OT in church, and they do not discuss it in their small groups, and thereby they have handed God's word over to to the world for abusive misinterpretations. The Bible is alive, and the Holy Spirit makes it known to the masses. If Christians who love God don't preach it, then Atheists who hate God will.

"...having become as much superior to the angels as the name he inherited is more excellent than theirs."