Well, it has been awhile since I was here last. I see lots of great discussion going on, but I did not come here to add to it, sorry if that sounds rude. Instead, I would like to continue a discussion I had in an online course which I am taking. Yesterday, our class discussed Plato's Socratic dialog Euthyphro. The dialog is very interesting and brings up the question: "what is piety?" Furthermore, it deciphers whether piety is piety because the "gods" love it or whether the "gods" love piety because it is piety.

First of all, I would like try to answer the second question first, from a Christian standpoint: is piety piety because God loves it, or does God love piety because it is piety? This question becomes a lot more difficult when we put an "s" in front of the word God, as the Greeks did. Because the Greeks had many gods and because they believed that their gods differed in opinions to one another, the first definition of piety wouldn't be a sound explanation for them: how can piety be piety, if piety is all things that the gods love, when all the gods love different things? Therefore, they would have to come up with the second explanation: the God(s) love piety because it is piety. However, when one God is concerned, I think that both statements apply. Now I would like to backtrack to the first question: What is piety? I think that we would all agree that piety is holiness or very close to that. So, let us assume that definition for now. I will now get back to the subject, both statements apply because Gods loves everything that is holy and everything is holy because God loves it. The Bible is clear on that, yes?

I do agree with the sentiments that the earth is a beatiful creation. Any study of physics, chemistry, biology, and even geology all point to a perfect creator. But at the same time, these beautiful creations that we see are also testatments to judgement. If you've ever flown over El Paso, or any other desert region, you will see the erosion marks that show a distinct result of a massive flow of water. The Flood of Noah's day truly wreaked havoc on the earth. That is a truly legitimate explination of the fossils, not just how they got fossilized but also thier order. I have good reason to believe the Flood led to the formation of the tectonic plates and that these boundaries are where the 'foundations of the deep' burst forth. And we all know about the earthquakes and volcanic activity that takes place as a result of the moving of the plates.

But what I also find even more amazing is that God can take a mangled planet that resulted from the Flood, and still make it look absolutely gorgeous. One of my favorite places to be are up in the mountains. The mountains are also a result of the plate movements, which were caused by the Flood, but they are so beautiful. And if this beautiful earth that we see today is the results of judgement and the Flood, then how much more was it before. And this isn't even taking original sin into effect.

So I look forward to the New Heaven and the New Earth because it will be even better than what it was when God originally created it. I can't fathom what that will truly be like, but I will have all of eternity to enjoy his new creation and praise him every single moment for it. But that being said, I have no plans to hurry to that point, because I have things to do here on earth, like the plan God has for me. And I will enjoy the creation while I am here, but still not the extend that I enjoy being in the presense of the creator.

And 220, I see I laid a big impression on you when I showed you the laminin pic. But have you seen a picture of the center of the Whirlpool Galaxy? That too as the appearance of a cross. It is so true that God had the entire plan of salvation and every detail of man's history set before he ever created the universe. Who else but an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient Creator God, could look at the emptiness of space, and forsee all of history before him? None else would have know that a sequence of empires would precede the coming of the Christ, and that their method of execution would be crucifixion. That Christ died before the foundations of the earth were formed is a testament that the power of his blood supercedes history and would redeem mankind from Adam in the distant past as they looked forward to him, to us and all our descendents as we look back. It certainly boggles the mind in total adoration and awe of the Lord of all Creation.

@Fencer: I didn't know about the Flood's effect on the earth, esp. deserts. Thanks for sharing. And there's a cross in the center of the Whirpool Galaxy? Cool!

"220, I see I laid a big impression on you when I showed you the laminin pic." LOL.

Who else but an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient Creator God, could look at the emptiness of space, and forsee all of history before him? None else would have know that a sequence of empires would precede the coming of the Christ, and that their method of execution would be crucifixion. That Christ died before the foundations of the earth were formed is a testament that the power of his blood supercedes history and would redeem mankind from Adam in the distant past as they looked forward to him, to us and all our descendents as we look back. It certainly boggles the mind in total adoration and awe of the Lord of all Creation.

Amen! This is what I love about Psalm 22, that through the Holy Spirit King David c. 1100BC [?] talks about the physical effects of crucifixion ... when he knew nothing about it.

@Watz: wow, philosophy. Over my head and not my cup of tea. That being said, back in February in the N&C board here on NarniaWeb, I shared C. S. Lewis's thoughts on the meaning of Emeth:

It is a Hebrew word that means "stability . . . certainty, truth, trustworthiness" (Strong's H.571). Lewis's Reflections on the Psalms (1986): God's "laws have emeth 'truth,' intrinsic validity, rock-bottom reality, being rooted in His own nature, and are therefore as solid as that Nature which He has created" (61).

I don't have the book with me, but the debate about what God loves and why -- "is piety piety because God loves it, or does God love piety because it is piety?" -- came up. And what I quoted was Lewis's response to that debate [on a different aspect of morality]. He basically thought the latter, i.e. that God loves piety because it is piety, just like He loves truth because it is truth. God doesn't call good evil and evil good.

EDIT #1
@Fencer: Whirpool Galaxy pic, please? Cause I'm wondering about Ezekiel 1 "The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel."

@Elsendor: while reading your post on the 'whys' of the Garden of Eden, I thought of a song called "Eden," by Annie Moses Band. [I've heard them in person. They're really good!]

EDIT #2: 4/25
Whirpool Galaxy ... here's a pic! I'm not sure what to think, but isn't that the coolest? Now I wish I had more courses in the hard sciences, cause that's what I'm really interested in -- the science of creation, of everything God made and how it points to Him. Remember "the heavens declare the glory of God"? [Psalm 19] Well, let's take this literally! I'm also wondering about the zodiac. Finally, has anyone entered the treasures of the snow? [Job 38]

EDIT #3: 4/26
A few minutes ago, I was listening to "Immanuel", sung at TRBC, on Youtube. [Someone FINALLY posted the song! ] Anyway, I got this sudden conviction that Jesus was truly my Immanuel and that we would never part and that the future before me was Jesus and heaven. My reaction? I lifted my hands and said hallelujah!

Refrain
"No power in heaven or earth / Can take us away from your love! / No trial or suffering, O God, can take us away from your love! / You're still Immanuel, God with us! / You're still Immanuel, God with us!" ... You just gotta hear this song!

I was at TRBC's annual spring concert with the great choir last night and the choir leader sang "Beulah Land." It was beautiful. And I suddenly became truly homesick. It's like all I want to do is see Jesus' face and bow at His feet and be in heaven forever. I just wanna go home.

Welcome back, Watz! Just the other day I was reading back over some of your posts, while digging up material I had written back then.

Briefly on the question about "piety" -- which I think would be better termed holiness because the other term has a self-righteousness connotation -- I think the best and most Biblical answer would be that God defines holiness as whatever will most glorify Him.

Otherwise He would be honoring something that is independent and outside Himself ("piety" or good deeds or goodness) more than Himself. He would be an idolater.

It's the same reason for why He created people, when He didn't need to; why He allowed people to rebel, which He could have prevented; and why He chose to save people, which He also didn't need to do: He wants more glory, and to give more of Himself to His people, who in turn will worship and praise His Name, thereby giving Him even more honor and glory.

Awesome reminders, Fencer and 220, about how God has sovereignly arranged all of history, including the exact order of human empires, to work out His eternal plan of redemption for His Church.

However, I am a bit confused as to how the photos of a laminin protein, and a cross shape in the center of a galaxy, are such boons to faith. Help me out here? And I don't want to be rude, but I have a few questions, and I'm sure they'll be echoed by others who also don't quite get it.

1. Do all galaxies or protein molecules contain cross shapes?

2. Might other galaxies or proteins seem to have other shapes instead? Perhaps even shapes in reminiscent of other religious icons, such as a Star of David or the Islamic Crescent? Perhaps someone with more of a life-sciences background could fill us in on this. (DiGs, have time?)

3. Could therefore someone of another religion use the same argument? Would it be valid for their point? If not, should we as Christians use the same line of reasoning? Does Scripture encourage us to do so?

4. Is this much different from people thinking they've seen Jesus, the Virgin Mary or a saint in shrubbery, and take it as a sign of blessing?

5. Do Christians really "need" such signs? Should we bring them up as proof that God's testimony of common grace and Creator is evident in creation? Does this jibe with Christians' claims to believe the written Word as God's final and uttermost specific revelation to people?

Regarding that last point, I can only quote from an excellent and recent Answers in Genesis article, by Dr. Georgia Purdom, about the laminin protein and the seeming cross shape. She starts off with a mention of evangelist Louie Giglio, who with good intentions relates the shape of laminin to the truth of Colossians 1:17.

I would suggest that this type of argument is not a good one to use. [. . .] The main problem with this type of argument is that it appears that something outside of Scripture (in this case, laminin) is vital to know the truthfulness of a biblical truth. Laminin is used to prove a biblical truth. However, we should never use our fallible, finite understanding of the world to judge the infallible Word of God. What we observe in the world can certainly be used to confirm God’s Word (and it does), but our finite observations are not in a position to evaluate the infinite things of God. Only if we start with the Bible as our ultimate standard can we have a worldview that is rational and makes sense of the evidence. [. . .]

The structure of laminin was not made popular until 2008, yet I have no doubt that many Christians before that time have trusted the truth presented in Colossians 1:17 because it is God’s Word. Would Colossians 1:17 be any less true if laminin were not in the shape of a cross? No. If five years from now we discover that the laminin protein actually has a different shape (in fact, some electron micrographs of the protein do not resemble a cross at all, see here, p. 149), would that change the truth found in Colossians 1:17? No, because our belief in the truthfulness that Christ holds all things together should start and end with God’s Word alone!

Looking for Signs

Unfortunately this type of argument—which effectively treats our fallible, finite knowledge of the evidence as superior to God’s Word—is very popular in today’s society, especially among young people. As a former Christian college professor, I have a lot of experience with college students. I lost track of the number of times students came into my office and told me they were going to switch majors or date someone or decide to do something because God had given them a “sign.” I always posed a series of questions to them after hearing about their “sign”: Had they been praying and asking for God’s guidance? Had they been studying the Bible? Had they been talking with spiritually mature mentors? Usually this was met with a half-hearted “yes,” and then it was back to telling me about the amazing “sign.”

Certainly God can use signs to reveal things, and that is evident from Scripture. In Luke 2:12 an angel tells the shepherds, “This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” However, Jesus also admonishes those that improperly seek signs (Matthew 16:4). In today’s “fast food” society, many people prefer the “drive-thru” when it comes to knowing God’s truths. A sign is much quicker than studying and reasoning from the Scriptures, taking the time to pray, and discussing God’s Word with other believers.

Young Christians have started doubting God’s Word (especially the book of Genesis) because this is what is drummed into them from the secular world through much of the media and most public schools. Many desperately want to accept the claims of Scripture but have been taught to think, improperly, that the unaided mind is the ultimate standard for acquiring knowledge. That is why the type of argument used with the laminin protein likely resonates with them and many other Christians as well. As one blogger said, “I Believe God Is Sending Us A Message Saying Im [sic] Here And Im [sic] Holding You Together.” Yet Proverbs 1:7a tells us, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (see also Colossians 2:3).

Consider what happens when people try to prove the resurrection of Christ (a biblical truth) using unaided reasoning. Science is clear on this one: dead people do not come back to life. So, does that prove that Jesus did not resurrect? Of course not! Science and human reasoning are not the limit of what is possible; God is the limit. Scripture should be our ultimate standard to understand this miraculous event.

Starting with unaided reasoning and reading our own ideas into the Bible can lead us to all sorts of absurd conclusions. For example, the Ebola virus, which causes a horrific form of hemorrhagic fever that usually results in death, happens to have the structure of what is commonly referred to as a shepherd’s crook. The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Good Shepherd (John 10:14). So, if the shape of laminin supports the biblical truth that Christ holds all things together, then what would we conclude about the Good Shepherd from the shape of the Ebola virus? And if laminin can represent a cross, then why not a sword (Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12)? As Christians, we cannot allow our fallible, finite interpretations to supersede the Word of God (2 Peter 1:20).

220, here's a picture of the Whirlpool Galaxy.

And one of the anomaly that Fencer is talking about...

According to what I'm reading that's an image of the center of M51, and purportedly there's a black hole behind it (a terrifying thing, if you ask me).

I'm not so sure this is God leaving a "calling card", especially when you can simply look to the night skies and be overwhelmed with the whole of it, yes?

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handiwork."

I love that verse...thought about having it engraved on my telescope, actually, but that's neither here nor there . There are a number of astronomical images that remind us of things, not unlike seeing things in cloud formations. For example...

The Cat's Eye Nebula

The Eskimo Nebula (I really like this one, down to the fuzzy hood lining)

The Ant Nebula

The Butterfly Nebula

The Sombrero Galaxy

The Ford Galaxie

*rimshot* Ok, the last one is just having fun . Stargazer is better at this than I am and can probably list a hundred more deep space objects that are named after things we recognize here on Earth. But you see my point I hope. When you look at the Big Dipper, probably the most recognizable constellation in the Northern Hemisphere it looks like its name, a giant dipper.

The Big Dipper (Ursa Major)

But when you move several hundred light years away the shape changes dramatically into unrecognizable forms because each star in that constellation is a different distance from us. My point (yes, I do have one ) is that while I don't think God is against putting little calling cards around for us to find I don't really believe He needs to...look at the images above. Is that not the work of a Great Artist? Is that not enough to prove His power beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Short, slightly off-topic post because Shadowlander just reminded me of something...

Anyone seen the documentary, The Star of Bethlehem? It's an amazing explanation of that very star -- or a theory on it, would be more accurate. It also mentions tons of other amazing things that God seems to have worked into the galaxy--different constellations and signs in the sky that were present at various times. It's worth checking out!

That's sort of what I think of when I think of "The heavens declare the work of thy hands." I was reading Romans 1 this morning, where it talks about how God gave us evidence of himself, but we did not see it... or something like that. I'm at school and don't have my Bible on me at present. But my point is... not only for the people back then, but also for us looking back at the past (with aid from software like Starry Night. XD), it seems the Lord left all sorts of hints and winks, so to speak, for people to find.

[[Forgive my atrocious grammar in that last paragraph. I'm starting to go stream-of-consciousness again...]]

Dr Elwin Ransom, , you do make an excellent point about laminin and the 'cross' in the center of the Whirlpool Galaxy. And to be honest, I got that from Louie Giglio and his Passion Talk series. One thing that is important to note, is that Louie does NOT use these as proof of Christianity. And neither am I. Because as you say, other religions can find similar shapes for their faiths as well and say the same thing. But when you are talking about these kinds of things, you realize that God created not only the entire universe, but every little detail that went into it. The Bible does say, in other words but with this idea, that he leaves his fingerprints throughout his creation. Looking at the laminin molecule, what it does, and then, in the context of the Christian faith, the similarities are there. It can be a witnessing tool, but not proof. There is only one way to prove creation took place. Where you there? If you can answer yes, then you can prove it.

And Shadowlander, makes an excellent point as well about shapes and images changes as you change position and perspective. The Bible does say that God created the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, and stars) to be our guides. Before compasses, the stars were how people navigated. The North Star is the only one that never moves. We all know how the earth rotates around the sun, and about its axis. Yet, the angle from our perspective regardless of our position around the sun and angulation in relation to the sun, the North Star remains in the same spot. That is pretty awesome stuff to think about. Now if the earth where in any other location in the universe, it would be very interesting to see how the universe would look. It wouldn't be the same, that's for sure.

And I'm not even going into how our placement in the Milky Way Galaxy plays a role into the ability to sustain life, or the role that Jupiter has. Did you know that Jupiter has such a large mass that it throws most interstellar objects off course to keep the inner four planets from harm. This is amazing stuff and I don't even have to mention creation when talking about it. God is calling me into teaching, and I am leaning towards certification in computers (for my major) math and physics. Depending on what position I land, I plan to teach my students the details like these and let them make thier own minds about creation. It's good stuff.

Great to see the debates still flying around in this thread.

I have to agree that laminin and the galaxy don't really prove Christianity, however we read in the Bible that, "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." - Romans 1:20

Do the amazing signs of creation directly prove God or Christianity? No. Do they show his magnificence in a way that we cannot deny something bigger than ourselves is out there? Yes.

As for the precise calculations of life, hanging on the edge of so many variables, we really have to ask the question, "Is there something out there that is focusing on US?" I present to you five points of the The Anthropic principle:

1). Gravity is roughly 10.39 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 10.33 times weaker than electromagnetism, - stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster.

2). The nuclear weak force is 10.28 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium making water impossible!

3). A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons - yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.

4). If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is - roughly twice the mass of an electron - then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it and to life.

5). The very nature of water - so vital to life - is something of a mystery (a point noticed by one of the forerunners of anthropic reasoning in the nineteenth century, Harvard biologist Lawrence Henderson). Unique amongst the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom.

It is too far fetched to simply think that chance created the world we are in. For me it is easier to believe a deity far greater than myself spoke and everything was created. When I look at creation these truths are reinforced, rather than torn apart. Proof? No. Reinforcement and evidence? Yes.

I might be a bit late to chime in on this whole "sciencey" thing, but I was alerted to this discussion earlier in the evening by the good Doctor. Here are some pictures of molecules (space-filling models, rather than actual photos, as molecules are somewhat tiny):

*NOTE: I suppose I should mention this now before posting any pics. The black bubbles are carbon atoms, the white bubbles are hydrogen atoms, the red bubbles are oxygen atoms, and the blue bubbles are nitrogen atoms. These four atoms make up nearly all of our bodies.

This is called Adenosine Triphosphate (also known as ATP). This is what our body uses for energy. Through spontaneous reactions, our body takes adenosine diphosphate (which has one fewer phosphate group) and converts it over to ATP. Phosphate ions (which is a phosphorous atom bonded to four oxygen atoms) are extremely negatively charged. Our body can store the energy within this molecule because it takes a LOT of energy (roughly 30 kilojoules) of energy to hold the molecule together.

This molecule is called Low Density Polyethylene (or LDPE for short). These carbon-hydrogen chains can contain several thousand atoms, making HUGE chains. This is what makes up plastic grocery bags, sandwich baggies, etc...

Here is a benzene molecule; a key ingredient in styrofoam:

This is called "Buckminster Fullerene," but as that's somewhat of a mouthfull, we chemists usually call it "buckeyball." It's comrpised of 60 carbon atoms bonded in a spherical structure. It can be used as an electrical insulator, however, if one places an ion (such as a potassium, lithium, calcium, etc...) inside, it becomes a superconductor. See, it's shaped like a soccerball.

The images that I found of the glob-like macromolecules such as enzymes, aren't exactly the easiest to comprehend, but understand that most molecules essential to live don't necessarily have a well defined shape, and therefore don't point to any creator by their shape.

Eric, you bring up a very good point about water! Apart from its solid being less dense than its liquid, water can also undergo hydrogen bonding. Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

You see, when it comes to water molecules, you've got an oxygen atom bonded to two hydrogen atoms (Thus H2O). When it comes to electron distribution amongst the molecule, Oxygen is a little bit greedy. It grabs most of the electrons for itself, leaving the hydrogens up the creek. This means that the hydrogens can form a semi-bond with other water molecules by bonding their positive tip to the oxygen's negative tip, and vice versa. This is what accounts for water's relatively high boiling point (which is pretty high for a liquid), as hydrogen bonds are UBER strong for their size. Hydrogen bonding is what holds the double helix of our DNA together. Without this nifty little thing, life as we know it couldn't exist.

Where to begin, where to begin?

The conversation has touched a topic near and dear to me, and any delay in replying isn’t due to a lack of interest, but in trying to frame my thoughts briefly, so this doesn’t turn into a discourse the length of Les Mis.

(I appreciate the humor in Shadowlander’s post above – it makes a great counterpoint to what might be a rather dry post here. )

Astronomy in general – and in particular the beauty of the night sky above – has been a special part of my life for as long as I can remember. I experienced the reality of “the heavens declare the glory of God” long before I knew there was a place in the Bible that made that claim.

Yet I’m also quick to agree with those who’ve pointed out that the glories of the heavens – or cool things in science in general – don’t prove the existence of God. To be sure, they offer affirmation of that existence to believers or direction to seekers. Please hear me out before throwing tomatoes or other rotten fruit at me.

Shadowlander’s excellent examples illustrate this interesting point: the skies are filled with objects named after familiar counterparts here on earth. In addition to constellations (bears, scorpions, and lions, oh my! ), things visible only in binoculars or telescopes bear the names of everyday objects (there’s even a Coat Hanger! ).

To paraphrase a comment made by a wise title character in the old series Gargoyles, humans really do have a tendency to name things, to impose familiar patterns on the unfamiliar. I’ve seen it countless times while stargazing with people unfamiliar with the classical constellations: What is that triangle over there called? Does this line of stars have a name? What about that square?

Hence we see a cross in the center of M51. Sure, that picture’s kind of neat – but I’m more impressed with Shadowlander’s picture of the Big Dipper – for that’s something I’ve seen nearly every clear night of my life. It’s an old friend, one recognizable to everyone in the Northern Hemisphere (those in the Southern have equivalents of their own, the Southern Cross perhaps).

It may just be me, but as cool and pretty as the Hubble pictures are, it’s seeing the night sky itself – a sight that is free and available to all – that touches me more. It’s just hard to beat experiencing the original!

But I’m not without imagination. Behind that cross in M51 is something pretty mind-blowing (as Shadowlander mentions): a supermassive black hole. When I was a kid, black holes were little more than a bizarre theoretical construct; now evidence suggests that most, if not all, galaxies – including our own – have them at their heart. The largest star currently known (with the very catchy name VY Canis Majoris) would, if placed where the sun is, reach out to the orbit of Saturn. And there are other huge stars, and more bizarre objects, out there.

As a kid I read mythology stories and astronomy books in addition to the usual fare. But it was a star-filled night sky that pointed me toward its Maker – not offering proof, but inspiration to wonder.

Science and nature – general revelation – inspire wonder in all of us. They do not prove God but point to Him.

This is getting rather long, and I’m not sure how well I’ve expressed myself. In hindsight, I think Shadowlander says it more briefly and better than I:

I'm not so sure this is God leaving a "calling card", especially when you can simply look to the night skies and be overwhelmed with the whole of it, yes?... while I don't think God is against putting little calling cards around for us to find I don't really believe He needs to...

I am reminded of something a friend and I recently discussed by email:

So often we see comics or other comments about how a sky full of stars makes a person feel small or insignificant. The thought goes, Space is so big, and so wonderful, what are we in comparison?

Yet it’s that very vastness, and the wonders it contains, which tell us something of its Creator – who also made us:

When I consider your heavens,
The work of your fingers,
The Moon and the stars which you have ordained,
What is man that you are mindful of him,
Or the son of man that you care for him?
For you have made him little lower than the angels,
And have crowned him with glory and honor (Psalm 8)

A few other thoughts on earlier posts:

The Anthropic Principle:To be sure, many of the physical constants of our universe seemed designed to fit the needs of life: it’s fine-tuned to support life. Even the speed of light is one of them (by E=mc²). And this has been pointed to as an indicator of a Creator. But some variations of the Principle point out that this is not necessarily so, by turning it on its head: life exists because the physical constants allow it, not the other way around. That is, if the universe had different constants or properties, then different life might have formed. In fact, given quantum mechanics’ multiverse/many universe theory, other universes may exist, each with varying parameters. Most would not support life but by sheer volume some do.

Jupiter’s unique role: The gas giant’s propensity to clear its neighborhood is indeed valuable for those of us living in the inner solar system. Relatively recent cometary impacts on its cloud tops demonstrate how it “protects” us. Imagine if a comet, even as small as this, were to hit the earth!

Incidentally, I recently read a fascinating magazine article in Sky and Telescope discussing the stabilizing effects of Jupiter on the inner solar system: using normal mechanics, the planets’ orbits appear quite stable as far out in time as can be tested. (However, the application of chaos theory can give different results. Ironically, in those cases, that great stabilizer – Jupiter – forms orbital resonances with Mercury that eventually eject the innermost planet from its orbit. But this is purely theoretical and in any event would be so far in the future that it’s nothing to worry about).

…I'm also wondering about the zodiac….

Some writers have proposed that the “original” zodiac was created and named by Adam and contains a gospel presentation, notably in 3 books written in the 1800s: Mazzaroth: Or the Constellations by Frances Rolleston (1862), Gospel in the Stars by Joseph Seiss (1882), and Witness of the Stars by E.W. Bullinger (1893).

This theory has proved somewhat controversial among Christians. I find it an interesting idea but urge caution: The Greek Zodiac we use today was by no means universal among early peoples; some civilizations had 18 or 24 “signs” and some were different animals (like the Chinese Rooster, Rabbit, and Dog). Proponents argue that these variations are corruptions of the true version that came after the Tower of Babel.

One supporter’s arguments can be found here, while Answers in Genesis’ objections are here.

I read Gospel in the Stars some years ago and enjoyed it, though the writer’s disregarding of some basic facts bothered me. For example, the claim is made that the star Deneb is a corruption of the Hebrew name Dan (judge). But Deneb is Arabic for tail – and that star marks the tail of Cygnus, the Swan. And deneb appears in several other star names, each marking the tail of an animal. For example, Denebola = Deneb (tail) + ola (lion) = tail of the Lion (Leo). So tying it to Dan seems to be stretching it a little.

If the gospel can indeed be read in the stars – rather than pointing us to its written record – then doesn’t it elevate the heavens from general revelation to special revelation?

The Star of Bethlehem: It’s fascinating that a couple of verses in Matthew so capture our imaginations (I’m one of those people who favor Christmas cards with a bright star over the stable) – yet we really don’t know what the Star was.

Elsendor, are you referring to the Jupiter-Regulus triple conjunction discussed here? Many years ago, at university, I was exposed to a similar theory, a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces (summary begins on page 2 of this pdf).

Legitimate objections have been raised to both of these theories, and we still don't know what the Star was. Yet both of these ideas demonstrate God’s command over the celestial dance – yet another way the heavens declare His glory.

(edited)

Dr. Ransom:
3. Could therefore someone of another religion use the same argument? Would it be valid for their point? If not, should we as Christians use the same line of reasoning? Does Scripture encourage us to do so?

4. Is this much different from people thinking they've seen Jesus, the Virgin Mary or a saint in shrubbery, and take it as a sign of blessing?

5. Do Christians really "need" such signs? Should we bring them up as proof that God's testimony of common grace and Creator is evident in creation? Does this jibe with Christians' claims to believe the written Word as God's final and uttermost specific revelation to people?

Interesting list of questions! And I am inclined to agree with the sentiments expressed in that excellent Answers to Genesis article -though they were a bit on the extreme side I understand it is damaging when people claim signs as their only reasoning for making an important 'God' decision. However if it lines up with Scripture and they have sought guidance from God than I see nothing wrong with a 'sign' that compliments what is already in the Word of God.

With regards to no.3; I have been pondering that for a very long time. My extended fam. has a history with the St.Mary sightings, oil and blood appearing on paintings of the saints, walls of houses etc -my Great-Aunt was visited by what appeared to be St. Mary and was indeed healed from her sick bed. My father saw what is claimed to be the Saint Mary above a famous Church in Egypt during the string of now-famous appearances in the Sixty's. More recently my Uncle showed me this bizarre video on his phone (oh technology!) of a saint coming out of a picture of herself hanging in a monastery (which was one of the creepiest things I'd ever seen, but to him it was inspirational, but I've rarely, rarely seen an Orthodox Christian sit down and open the Word for inspiration?).

I know that as humans we crave signs and can think of a few Biblical characters who prayed for them and were honoured by God with them. For example the story of Gideon always comes to mind when wondering whether to pray for a sign is right or not.

Judges 6: 36 Gideon said to God, "If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised- 37 look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said." 38 And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dew—a bowlful of water.

39 Then Gideon said to God, "Do not be angry with me. Let me make just one more request. Allow me one more test with the fleece. This time make the fleece dry and the ground covered with dew." 40 That night God did so. Only the fleece was dry; all the ground was covered with dew.

Here God respected Gideon's request...so it would seem it is ok to pray for signs (although some might argue that the Israelites were quite pagan at this time in their practices and expectations and Gideon himself showed this when he made an unwise vow later on). In other places where signs were ASKED for, they seem to denote a person's lack of faith (e.g. doubting Thomas; or the 'perverse' generation Jesus addresses). Other times supernatural signs seem to occur where they are not necessarily looked for (the shepherds and Christ's birth, for example).

So I can't say that I think sign-seeking is bad form, but using it as justification is not as powerful as using the Word of God. BUT having said that I don't understand why God (if indeed it was Him) would allow things like St. Mary to appear to a people (namely, Coptic Orthodox Christians) who believe in her infallibility and her sin-less-ness; this is not biblical, so why enforce that deception and take the focus of Christ? Then again I have heard of many Muslim converts who were quite drastically led by an appearance of St Mary along the road to their salvation. It really confuses me, though I guess this is a supernatural occurrence as opposed to a supernatural sign.

I think at the end of the day the effects of a sign may suggest whether it was from God or not. Have you gone on to produce fruit from that sighting? If your life and character have not changed, or been inspired to do so, than what was its use? Maybe it was not from God in the first place -the devil is pretty good at imitating God, and we do love a good thrill. Does anyone have any thoughts on these sightings and sign-seeking in general? I suppose it's not really a common query -but it comes up in my household a bit.

From my understanding of Scripture and 20 years of missions experience, signs and wonders from God do not happen just out of the blue. And believe me, I have seen some miracles as well. God always has a purpose when he performs a miracle. At Spring Break a year ago, I was at a Day Care Center in Juarez, MX with a small group where we did a sloppy joe meal for the kids, staff, and team. We had food for 40, which means 40 plates, 40 buns...you get the picture. As we set up, the whole neighborhood showed up; about 75 people in all. We decided to feed them as well and we prayed that God would multiply the food. We served full plates, served seconds and had leftovers. This was a miracle with a purpose.

As far as the St. Mary sightings, I would be very skeptical about that. I know Catholics consider her to be sinless because Jesus was sinless, but no where in Scripture can that be backed up. The blood and oil wonders could be a trick. It could be set up but that is speculation. You make a great point, StudyMate, about how the devil seeks to immitate God. And while God is fully capable of performing a miracle, sign, or wonder, in any way he chooses, I see no precedent in Scripture that he would use the methods such as coming out of a painting or something like that. While God could do something like this, so can the enemy, and God never works in a way that Satan would as to confuse us. God is always very specific about his word, his message, and the intention of the signs he gives.

You mention Gideon, but we must be careful here. What is the motivation of Gideon's request. Was it to get a sign or to see something to wow you as the Pharasees did with Jesus? Or was it to get a confirmation of what the angel said would be true? God will use signs to confirm what he wants us to do. But signs come in a variety of means. God will do this for those that are truly seeking him and want a confirmation that he is real and will do what he says. I was reading in Isaiah 7 the other day, where he goes to King Ahaz about the arrival of the Assyrian Empire. Isaiah told Ahaz to ask God for a sign, and Ahaz refused. Isaiah rebuked Ahaz for testing the patience of God. Why is this? Doubt? Unbelief? Stubborness? I can't really say for sure, but it certainly gets the mind thinking.

I had heard about this on the news early this morning but didn't get a chance until recently to look into it at all. If this does prove to be Noah's Ark it would be one of the single biggest archaelogical disoveries in history. But...we've been had before numerous times. I say let trained folks go over it inch by inch until it's confirmed or denied. The funny thing is I was reading on Noah's Ark this past weekend and then this happens. Funny stuff, eh? Genesis states that the Ark was made of gopher wood...except that this specific type of wood is still something of a mystery. No one knows what kind of wood the Ark was actually made of or if this gopher wood is called something else today, or perhaps it got gone after the Flood. Anyone know anything about this?

Wagga's a trained archaeologist...do you have decent chances of going to digs like this when they pop up?

Shadowlander, I do hope you read my profile carefully. Really carefully. And no, I don't have chances to go on archaeological expeditions, not being part of a University study, or funded for research by such a University, and being a mite more careful to maintain and appreciate my somewhat less exciting normal life. If you want to go into archaeology, there are reputable American Universities running such courses who would encourage archaeology students to participate in such expeditions. Otherwise, Archaeology magazines like Archaeological Diggings, Archaeology or Biblical Archaeology Review sometimes advertise tours and chances to participate in Israeli digs.

Of course archaeological expeditions within one's own country are a different matter to those in Europe or in the Middle East, the glamourous, attention getting holy grail of archaeology being anything to do with the Bible, as you mention. And for precisely that reason each discovery has to be treated with some scepticism until proven to be genuine. There have been far too many people who have indulged in wishful thinking, who have ruined archaeological sites and artifacts to prove what they believe. Some have even stooped to forgery, though the Dead Sea Scrolls seem genuine enough. It isn't only Christian belief which is at stake, either, as others have interests in proving or disproving the fidelity of such artifacts. The Palestinians, proving that there was no such thing as a Jewish State in Israel? The Israelis who would dearly love to prove the opposite? And there has been so much war and mayhem in those areas that to find anything at all would be a miracle.

Yes, I have heard about Chinese archaeologists allegedly finding bits of Noah's Ark, on Mount Ararat. And in yesterday's paper, I read the Turkish government might have something to say about such alleged finds. You are quite right to say that people have been had by similar claims beforehand. Quite recently at Easter I read in the paper claims that perhaps Noah's Ark was a circular sort of construction. It also says much about the likelihood of finding Noah's Ark that it was built of wood, which, being an organic substance, is unlikely to last for millennia.

Now if you were to be discussing the Lost Ark of the Covenant, you might have a better chance of finding it. Tudor Parfitt, a UK professor, is mentioned in connection with that other Ark, having spent some years in search of traces of it, taking as his first references 2 Chronicles 35:3, Jeremiah, Lamentations (2:1) and 2 Maccabees. Parfitt, after many years' search in Ethiopia, Israel and Egypt, finally found what he firmly believes is the Lost Ark in Zimbabwe, where the Lembas tribe have genetic connections to priestly Levites of the Jewish faith.

And he might be right, you know. Josiah, the King of Judah who mentioned the Ark in 2 Chronicles 35: 3, was killed at Meggido by the Pharaoh Necho II, on his way to the fateful Battle of Carchemish, in support of the Assyrians, in about 605 BC in a major, historic and decisive battle which ushered in the later Babylonian hegemony of the area and the destruction of Jerusalem, under one of Josiah's sons. So the Lost Ark of the Covenant wasn't anywhere near as old as Noah's Ark and so is more likely to have survived.

One article you really should look at is this one in Archaeological Diggings, written by David Down, entitled Jericho under fire again. (pp.9-11) in Vol 17 no. 2 (April-May) edition. This article discusses the chronology of Jericho and suggests that maybe the dates for Joshua's siege of Jericho should be ascribed to an earlier age, where it fits much better with the archaeological evidence of utter devastation of the city at that time.

Fencer4Jesus: We decided to feed them as well and we prayed that God would multiply the food. We served full plates, served seconds and had leftovers. This was a miracle with a purpose.

That sounds pretty darn cool. And I like what you said about God using signs to confirm something specific which He knows the receiver is listening for. I suppose with the St Mary sightings, I'm also skeptical but cautiously so, not decided but open to confirmation. I was watching a documentary today about a sighting in the 1800's in France, where an apparition appeared to two children on a hilltop, it was quite detailed and the story was quite, well, very, blasphemous (the Saint is said to refer to 'her people' who make 'her weep' and that she has to 'pray ceaselessly' so that the 'wrath of her son' would not come). Here is a link if anyone is interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_La_Salette
.

Interesting article, Shadowlander. I enjoyed reading some of the comments underneath. I have a question, or a wondering really, but wouldn't it be possible that Noah and family did something practical and took apart the ark to use for ready building materials in their new homeland? Although I suppose that's gonna make for a lot of houses...

If I was lucky enough to be an archaeologist, I think I'd search for the missing Ark of the Covenant. The whereabouts of it have always been fascinating to me...it's such a large part of the Old Testament, and then it just sort of disappears from the pages (and we receive the Holy Spirit, woopah!).

EDIT: Simulpost!

waggawerewolf: Parfitt, after many years' search in Ethiopia, Israel and Egypt, finally found what he firmly believes is the Lost Ark in Zimbabwe, where the Lembas tribe have genetic connections to priestly Levites of the Jewish faith.

Wow, this is so interesting. I've not heard this theory before! Although admittedly the last time I saw anything on the matter it was about archaeologists lamenting the fact that they were denied access to some sort of underground sites where Solomon's temple & the modern day mosque sits. Thanks for that link!