Biologos - How Are the Long Life Spans in Genesis Explained?

Long Life Spans in Genesis

http://biologos.org/blog/long-life-spans-in-genesis

by Jim Stump

January 16, 2014

Today's entry was written by Jim Stump. You can read more about what we believe here.

* * * * * * * * * * *

We at BioLogos are often asked how we understand the long life spans attributed to the patriarchs in Genesis. There is no direct connection between these and the scientific theory of evolution, but I suppose some people think there is a problem for us since the ages given in the genealogies (in chapters 5 and 11) have been used to date the origin of humanity to the relatively recent past (six to ten thousand years ago). 

Furthermore, it is charged, people living for more than 900 years stands in conflict with BioLogos’ acceptance of contemporary science. On this latter point, I should note that our acceptance of science does not at all imply that we think God never performs miracles. If God wanted to make Methuselah live to be 969 years old, we certainly believe that God could intervene in the natural order of things and make that happen. The question rather—as it should be for all biblical interpretation—is whether that is really the message of the text.

Genesis 5 gives very specific numbers for the genealogy from Adam to Noah. If these mean what 21st century English speakers naturally take them to mean, then we’d be committed to believing either that some people lived very long lives in the distant past or that the Bible is reporting incorrect information. But of course Genesis was not written in 21st century English, so our concern is not with what these words would mean if they were written by us today. Instead, as biblical scholars regularly remind us, we should ask, “What do the words mean in the language and culture in which they were written?”

In answering this question, the first thing to point out is that in the records we have from the ancient Mesopotamian culture, sometimes numbers were used like we use them today, as the way of counting and measuring—like in this receipt for the sale of fields from about 2500 BC. But other times in the ancient literature numbers are used numerologically. That is to say, a number’s symbolic value could be used to convey mystical or sacred meanings rather than just its numerical value (if you’ve ever read Potok’s The Chosen, you’ll remember the kind of numerology—gematria—practiced by Reb Saunders in the Hasidic community; or you could go to this website today and get an explanation of the numerological value of the letters in your name according to ancient Chaldean numerology). Different versions of the Sumerian King List are found in several ancient documents, and these use outlandishly large figures for the number of years some kings supposedly reigned in various Mesopotamian city-states (e.g., in Eridug, Alulim ruled for 28,800 years!). The numbers there came to have a role in legitimizing certain dynasties, and no one thinks they are simply historical reports of true numerical values. So, since there are clear examples of numbers being used numerically and of numbers being used numerologically, when we see some numbers in literature from the Ancient Near East (like in Genesis), we must consider which way they were being used.

A casual look at the numbers in Genesis 5 seems to suggest a fairly random distribution of ages: Adam lived to be 930, Mahalalel to 895, Jared to 962, and of course the granddaddy of them all, Methuselah lived to be 969. We don’t immediately notice anything special about these numbers, so we are inclined to see them as consistent with the sorts of numbers we’d expect in a report of ages (albeit of very old people). But that’s because we think of numbers in base 10. If the numbers reported were all “round” numbers like 500 or 1000, that would give us pause and suggest to us the implausibility of all these people dying at one of these “special” ages. Perhaps we’d think there to be something more significant going on than just a straight numerical account of ages. Well it turns out that these numbers in Genesis 5 do have some peculiar characteristics when you dig a little deeper. This gets a little technical, so hold on tight!

There are 30 age numbers we can get from Genesis chapter 5—three numbers for each of ten patriarchs: the age when a son was born, the number of years the patriarch lived after the son was born, and the total number of years the patriarch lived. For example, “When Adam had lived 130 years, he became the father of… Seth. The days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were 800 years… Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years” (Genesis 5:3-5). We get similar accounts of Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah (though for Noah we have to go to Genesis 9:29 to see how old he was when he died).

The first thing more careful observation reveals about these 30 numbers is that all of them end with the digits 0, 2, 5, 7, or 9. You might not think that is too remarkable until you realize that it eliminates half of the possible numbers. It is like seeing a list of 30 numbers that are all even. We wouldn’t think that was a random distribution of numbers. In fact, the odds of getting all thirty numbers to end with just these “approved” digits in a random distribution of ages are about one in a hundred million.[1] That should make us suspicious that Genesis 5 is merely giving a historical report. Something else must be going on here.

One option is attaching some significance to the fact that all of the 30 numbers can be expressed as combinations of the two “sacred” numbers 60 and 7 in terms of years and months. 60 was culturally significant because it was the number that Babylonian mathematics was based on (the influence of this sexagesimal system is still felt today with our 60 minutes per hour and 60 seconds per minute). And 7, of course, has a prominent place in biblical symbolism beginning with the Sabbath. So when we’re told that Methuselah was 187 years when he had his son Lamech (Gen. 5:25), we can see that 187 = 60+60+60+7 years. And then because 60 months = 5 years, when Adam is said to be 130 years at the birth of his son Seth (Gen. 5:3), that can be expressed as (60+60 years) + (60+60 months).

This could explain why all the reported ages end in 0, 2, 5, 7, or 9. These are what common combinations of 60 years, 5 years (=60 months), and 7 years end with: besides the obvious 0, 5, and 7, numbers ending with 2 come from adding 7 to a number that ends with 5 (5+7=12); and 9 comes from adding 7 twice to a number ending with 5 (5+7+7=19)

For some of the numbers in Genesis 5, the combinations have to get more complicated. Check the footnotes to see how to calculate Seth’s 912 years[2] when he died, or the 782 years[3] Methuselah lived after the birth of Lamech. These and all the others can be generated by combinations of 60, 5, and 7.

Now perhaps it might be claimed that you can come up with most any number if you let the combinations get complex enough. See the footnote to see how a number ending with a 3 (an “unapproved” number in Genesis 5) like 963 can be expressed.[4] Doesn’t this prove that numerology is contrived and capable of showing whatever you want it to show? Maybe. Such practices are often vague and ambiguous under the light of rational investigation. The truth is that we don’t really know what it meant to the ancients to attribute these numbers to lives of the patriarchs. Some scholars have tried to show how there are other more complicated schemes of numerology by which the numbers in Genesis are derived and perhaps related to the similar accounts of the Sumerian King List (see Young’s papers in the further reading list). Others have claimed that the numbers in these genealogies might function rhetorically (remember the “40” year old Indonesian woman in Walton’s post about cultural context?). We may never know for sure what significance the numbers had for the ancient Hebrews who wrote the text.

The question is whether it is a better explanation to interpret the numbers as having some symbolic or rhetorical significance to the original audience (even if we don’t know what that is), or that they were just a straightforward listing of numbers the way we would use them today. Knowing what we do about the culture, and in the absence of any persuasive reasons for thinking that the ages of these men were so radically different than they are today, it seems that a symbolic or rhetorical interpretation is a legitimate option and probably to be preferred.

Taking the biblical text seriously as a product of an ancient culture which was very different from our own forces us to do a lot of difficult work in order to interpret it correctly. Sometimes people respond to this fact with despair that they can understand anything in the Bible. I don’t think that is the appropriate response. I believe that anyone can pick up the Bible and read it profitably. The Holy Spirit speaks to us today through Scripture, and you do not need a PhD in biblical studies in order to hear the Spirit’s voice in your life. Even if we never know for sure how genres worked in the ancient world or how long the patriarchs actually lived, we know enough to understand what God expects us to take from the text. In this case it seems that the takeaway message is God’s providential preservation of a people: the sin of Cain in chapter 4 could have meant death for all, but here in chapter 5 there is a “reboot” that runs through Seth instead. We make it to the time of Noah, and God starts things over again, preserving Noah to carry on the human race. Then the Tower of Babel sends civilization scattering, and God calls Abram to father the Hebrew people (through whom all people would be brought back to God). These genealogies orient the Hebrews’ thinking to the deep past and highlight their role for all of humankind.

Now none of us is infallible in how we interpret the Spirit’s voice and in how we interpret Scripture, so we should exercise some caution in dogmatically asserting that we’re certain that we’ve got it right—especially when there is the possibility that we’re imposing our own culture’s ideas on the text. Not everyone needs to get a PhD in Ancient Near Eastern studies in order to read Genesis; but there should be some people in our faith communities who get such degrees and help us to read the text more accurately. They aren’t infallible either, but we must give credence to their work. God expects us to use our minds to the best of our ability. He has communicated to us through the Bible and through the created order. Christian communities honor God and enable themselves to proclaim the truth more effectively by studying  (or referring) to both of these sources.

For further reading

• Carol A. Hill wrote a fairly accessible article (available online [PDF]) on this topic from which I have drawn some of the information in this post: “Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 55(4):239-251, December 2003.

• If you have access to a research library, you can read a series of technical articles by Dwight W. Young that goes deep into the mathematics of ancient Babylon and the writings influenced by it (including Genesis):
  • “A Mathematical Approach to Certain Dynastic Spans in the Sumerian King List” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 47:123-29, 1988.
  • “On the Application of Numbers from Babylonian Mathematics to Biblical Life Spans and Epochs” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 100:331-61, 1988.
  • “The Influence of Babylonian Algebra on Longevity among the Antediluvians” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 102:321-35, 1990.

• John Walton’s article on “Genealogies” in the Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, Bill T. Arnold and H.G.M. Williamson, eds., (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2005) gives a lot of helpful information on the forms and functions of genealogies in the Old Testament.

---

1. If the 30 numbers were all determined randomly, each would have a 50% chance of ending with one of the “approved” digits; multiply 50% times itself 30 times and you get about one out of a billion. But it’s not quite that simple. Since the value of each patriarch’s total years is the sum of the other two numbers, that total isn’t random—it’s a function of two random numbers. For example, if our “approved” digits were all even numbers, then the sum of any two of them would have to be an even number too. But with our list of numbers it doesn’t quite work that way. You could have two numbers ending with the “approved” digits, and add them together and get either an “approved” or an “unapproved” digit: adding numbers ending in 2 and 5, and you get 7; but add numbers ending in 2 and 9, and you get a number ending in 1. It turns out that there are 25 combinations of our approved numbers; 16 of those (64%) yield another approved number, and 9 of them yield an unapproved number. So our total probability is figured by multiplying the probability of 20 random numbers ending in an “approved” digit (.5²⁰) by the probability that 10 sums of “approved” numbers end in an “approved” digit (.64¹⁰). I calculate that number to be very close to .00000001 – one out of a hundred million. [return to body text]
2. 912 = [(60+60+60 years) x 60 months] + 60 months + 7 years. That is, 180 years x 5 years (=900 years) + 12 years. [return to body text]
3. 782 = (60+60+60+60+60+60+60+60+60+60+60+60 years) + (60+60+60+60 months) + (7+7+7+7+7+7 years). That is, 720+20+42 years. [return to body text]
4. 963 = [(60+60+60 years) x 60 months] + (7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7 years) = (180x5)+63 = 900+63 = 963. [return to body text]

---

Jim Stump has served as the Content Manager at BioLogos since August 2013. He oversees the development of new content and curates the existing content. Jim's PhD is in philosophy from Boston University where he wrote a dissertation on the history and philosophy of science. He is the author (with Chad Meister) of Christian Thought: A Historical Introduction (Routledge, 2010) and the editor (with Alan Padgett) of the Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012). Jim is a frequent speaker at churches and other groups on topics at the intersection of science and Christianity.

The Jewishness of the Messianic Scriptures

Introduction

Long years ago I became inadvertently involved in the (Jewish) Christian-based Torah movement (see a sampling list of Christian sectarian and gnostic movements here). At the discretion of my pastor I put together a Passover Sedar Feast during an Easter celebration to a congregation of second- and third- generation Dutch immigrants steeped in Reformed doctrine. To be sure this would have been a very odd type of Easter observance to these Western European emigres steeped in Dutch Reformed traditions, and yet, when done, became a visibly moving blessing to all.

A year later I found myself and my family at a new church plant that quickly became involved (quite innocently) in a Gentile proselyte movement based upon Torah study and led by a sect of well-meaning Gentile Christians wishing to "touch the hem" of our Rabbi Jesus' garments in form, function, doctrine, and structure. They held to a type of pseudo-Christian teaching that pretended to be informed by a Jewish-mindedness but in actuality were bending the Scriptures to suit their favored outlooks and ideas about Jesus and the church, while willfully revising hoary orthodox doctrines based upon their sectarian outlook. All-well-and-good except for the fact that it smelled sectarian right from the outset.

For several years I personally resisted this group's skewed "Jewish" teachings of the Bible until finally my new church home came around to this same idea after having pursued it hard during this time of spell and entrancement. One of our favorite teachers to the church was a Mr. Robert Vander Laan from Hope College in Holland, Michigan, whose video I present below. He had a hunger for the Jewish God of Scripture, and in all things wished to "fill" the atmospheres of the church's New Testament witness with insightful Hebraic words and phrases, customs and traditions. Especially as they revolved around Jesus and New Testament Christology.

It was commendable but again, the sect of people he attracted were looking to aggressively re-write church doctrine in a decidedly unorthodox way. Eventually this interest within our very young church became a questionable fad and regrettably died away because of the tension it brought when attempting to rewrite Christian doctrines in sectarian fashion however its basis and foundation.

A Christian sect focused on Judaism

What tension? That Jesus was primarily looked upon as God's prophetic Rabbi (priest) rather than as humanity's Rabbinic Saviour. That the (Gentile) church was a dishonourable place of cultic worship and better located in home cell groups on a Saturday evening lighting candles, singing psalms, wearing tassels on one's clothing, and bedecked in yarmulkes (Jewish skullcaps). That the apostle Paul was a Jewish Christian heretic who didn't deserve to be read - only the gospels of Jesus alone - and that all of the NT Scriptures must be held in a forced subservience to the Old Testament teachings of Judaism as this sectarian  movement wished to interpret them. Ecclesiology was re-written. Eschatology was re-written. The Christian Gentile calendar scrutinized, criticized, and disavowed. And generally, there was a forced doctrinal migration back into Old Testament worship (however it was comprehended) which was strongly recommended and acceded to by all active participants in this group.

Here was an instance of trying to capture New Testament teachings through the eyes of Jesus and Paul gone awry. Rather than leading to a deeper grace of understanding with our wanna-be "Jewish" Christian brethren it became a steep divide demanding all Messianic Christians to become Jewish Christians. A divide that was misappropriated and finally fell apart under its own weight of conjectures and hot passions that would worship God in the "right way." The Jewish way. As they understood it.

Hence, as much as I would like to recommend Ray Vander Laan's Bible Lands series... I do so with reservation based upon the hindsight mentioned above. Rather than serving as helpful insight and instruction it became a misdirected passion by a sincere sect of Christians wishing to remake the Christian Church Jewish instead of Messianic. A group that perceived God's fullest blessings only upon those few Christian followers dedicated to a culture of Jewishness, rather than teaching that both Jews and Gentiles alike were equally blessed by the grace of the Saviour regardless of a culture participation or ethnicity. That would divide Scripture to exclude much of the New Testament (such as the apostle Paul's writings), while rewriting standard church eschatologies of Kingdom  theology in a purer, fuller strain of a Jewish Kingdom rather than as a combine traversing all nations, tribes, and people. That is, the gospel of Jesus, in accordance to His Kingdom teaching, is trans-national, trans-cultural, trans-temporal - and not Jewish only-and-ever-and-always. It was a sectarian movement that had grand motives but held very bad, unbiblical theology, as strange as it sounds. It was as much mystical as it was confounding and sadly bound by a hard-headed leadership intolerant of all things of the church that were non-Jewish and Gentile-based (which included most of the Western/European Protestant heritage and Eastern Orthodox traditions).

Hence, as much as RVL's videos are very good, one must remember he is self-trained and hearkens back as one of the progenitors of these well-meaning, but doctrinally misplaced, "Olive-Branched" church sects seeking "purity" of worship through acts of the flesh by donning Jewish dress and adopting a Jewish diet, calendar, attitude, and temper as they interpreted it. Whose height of information always flowed first-and-foremost from today's orthodox Rabbinic Judaism (which is a good place to begin if you are to begin somewhere in order to understand Judaism). But the emphasis was so one-sided in this effort that the old observations by Jesus in the New Testament about the Scribes and Pharisees were beginning to haunt the doctrines of this newer sectarian Jewish-Christian group. They were fast becoming guilty of the very things Jesus had warned the Pharisees and the Scribes about 2000 years earlier.

Since then, I believe RVL has parted ways from these kinds of Christian groups while moving into the larger streams of evangelicalism if I read his website accreditations properly. Now mindfully, this is not meant to be a diatribe against our Jewish/Christian brothers and sisters but against the practice of proselytizing Christians into a Judaistic-form of Christianity knit by an interpretive Jewish form and structure. It is one thing to understand the church's heritage and attempt to capture its meaning but quite another to subtend the church into divisions within the Lord's body. Where one group is more favored of God than another. Where only the "inner" sanctum of "true" believers receive God's fullest blessings.

This kind of attitude is what makes this religious effort more of a sect and not simply another kind of protestant denomination. It has moved away from mainstream Christian orthodoxy. And though I do not wish to muddle things up, we should also further distinguish between Messianic Christian fellowships with deep Jewish roots from non-Jewish Christian sectarian groups... the former being more orthodox than the latter. The one places emphasis on Jesus while the other places emphasis on tradition. The one brings its Jewishness to Scripture as part of its heritage while the other forces it in and all else out. It is a different attitude or spirit of worship from one to the other and stands readily apparent to the questioning eye.

But to those who would add to the Lord's salvation by works of the flesh let us not think that God favors only those Christians who become Jewish in their Christian attitude. Or that God's Kingdom-to-come is going to be strictly Jewish and not multi-ethnic or multi-national. Or that God's greatest favor is reserved to those church fellowships dedicated to a kind of Jewish-mindedness rather than a Messianic-mindedness. The task of the Holy Spirit is not to proselytize Christian Gentiles into becoming Jewish Christians but Messianic Christians who know-and-respect the Jewish background and history of the Scriptures without becoming perversely sectarian in perspective.

Jewish Orthodoxy's Historical Connections

At present, most of contemporary Jewish orthodoxy has been based upon Old Testament manuscripts that can go no further back in textual variant than to that of the 6th century AD. The orthodox church itself also has a similar association with that of its own New Testament Scriptures because of the ravages of time and space to ancient documents and human cultures. And thus, when speaking of Jewish orthodoxy we must realize that its own history was being consolidated around the same time of Christianity. Even though Judaism goes further back in time than Christianity in its present iterations of itself it is about the same age as that of early Christianity. Now this is a stunning statement so we should go on to explain what this means....

In Jesus' day the Judaism we read of in the New Testament was in its earliest forms. We speak of it as an incipient (= early) form of early Rabbinicism (cf, Wikipedia - Origins of Rabbinic Judaism) which means that it was yet in its infancy during Jesus' time and not fully developed until around AD 200. What helped propel its consolidation was the religious rivalry it was experiencing from the early Christian church as Jewish Christians spoke the same Old Testament Scriptures and preached Jesus from its pages as God's revealed Son and Savior. Those Jews not similarly convicted were then motivated to increase their efforts to centralize around prominent aspects of their Jewish faith as distinguished from early Christian interpretations and practices of an unbounded Judaism decoupled from tradition and bounded unto the person and work of Christ Jesus. (I would go further to testify that it was this Yahwistic faith that Ezra and Nehemiah preached that Jesus much later took and re-orientated towards Himself. For followers like John the Baptist's Essene fellowship this was an easy adoption to make. But for other Jews not so much so).

Hence, the consolidated Rabbinic faith of AD 200 is the one that now serves as the basic structure for today's Jewish orthodoxy seeking to re-capture any of its earlier traditions as it may through archaeological research and discovery, legends and traditions, even as Christianity does as well. A rich religious history that attests to the sad legacy of man's evil and hate upon cultures that can no longer remember its own histories having been ripped apart by genocidal rage and death. The Jewish culture has been on of those unfortunate people groups that have suffered for thousands of years from war, deprivation, lost of faith and hope, death, mass exile, and various forms of national resurrection.

Even so, the Judaism we read of in the New Testament Scriptures from Jesus' and Paul's day was one that was birthed during the Inter-testamental period between the Testaments. A period the church considers as the "silent" period between the Old and New Testaments when God did not speak to His people but one that actually was not so historically silent or so lost from God as once was thought. For it was within this time period that God began to resurrect His people and culminate His promises to them through His Son. It would be a period of restoration begun at Nehemiah and Ezra's separate returns from Babylonian exile (450-350 BC) and resulting in a number of Jewish groups of varying belief and religious structure.

That this Intertestamental period must be understood as a time when the ancient Jewish faith purposely gathered together its remaining documents and oral histories with a dedication of mind-and-will that sought to retain its very ancient, very fragmented, very fractured, and mostly lost, Jewish traditions. This we know as the Second Temple period after the Babylonian exile. A period where remaining Jews dedicated themselves to restoring their faith and traditions.

Traditions that would flow forward through a multitude of interpretive sectarian Jewish doctrines during those 350-450 Intertestamental years into the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Accounts that saw Jesus debating with the priests of His day as to their private understandings and interpretations of their ancient Jewish faith. From these debates we gather that the Jewish faith then was as divided as the church is today around its many doctrines of God and Scripture.

That John the Baptist's Essene group was but one of those divided Intertestamental Jewish groups. A group that was popular within some regions of Israel and happened to be the one that Jesus' cousin (John) would become involved with. A group from which even Jesus would teach some of their beliefs to His surrounding countrymen either as a way to start a discussion or to modify a debate (it made for good semantics and great contemporary discussion).

Accordingly, early Judaism (or incipient rabbinicism) was a movement that would continue to solidify after the early church's formation (thus, incipient Christianity between AD 26-36) to eventuate into a body of beliefs some 200 years later even as the early Church Fathers were doing the same for the Christian belief. It is this rabbinicism - or early Jewish faith - that forms so much of today's Jewish orthodoxy. An orthodoxy whose remaining talmuds and tanakh (the tanakh is the Jewish canon of Scripture composed of both the OT + the Jewish Apocrypha) can only extend to around AD 600 in testimony to its hoary Jewish texts and manuscripts blighted by the ravages of time and war, loss and death. (cf. Wikipedia - The Talmud is composed of (1) the Jewish Mishna which is the oral records of the Torah and, (2) the Jewish Gemara, which are the teachings or commentaries derived from the oral Torah).

An orthodox Jewish faith that appreciates Jesus' reform and the Apostle's message, but a faith that does not regard Jesus as their Messiah. Nor the Apostle's New Testament writings as their Scriptures. Which prefers Judaism in its own cultural right as God's saving function of grace while seeing God's redemption as proceeding through the nation Israel itself by its practices and beliefs, and not through the Church that was formed in the New Testament on the day of Pentecost by the Holy Spirit made of both Jew and Gentile.

And while it is true that we observe the same God, venerate the same Jewish traditions, and seek the shalom of God in truth and love with all of humanity, the dividing line - as with all things in life - is Jesus as God's Son and Saviour. Who encompasses in His Person all the Jewish traditions and customs by His Name, Acts, Word, Incarnation, Redemption, and Resurrection.

Who is the Holy Lamb of God become our High Priest, Holy Prophet, and glorious King, by Yahweh's will and Spirit. Who is very God of very God. And very Lord of very Lord. Who is one in essence with the Father, and in Triune fellowship with both Father and Spirit.Who forgives sin because He is the sin bearer, the atoning sacrifice, divine mediator and advocate of all creation. Who is, in Himself, our very Shalom.

Conclusion

Hence, we stand in sympathy with any Christian church or movement wishing to more fully understand the Judaism of the Bible.... Thus the emphasis today on the "New Perspective of Paul" (NPP) popularized by N.T. Wright, James D.G. Dunn, and E.P. Sanders. It is a movement away from our sparse Westernized view and enculturated Gentile traditions of Scripture back to its rightful (Ancient) Near Eastern (ANE) outlook and how that movement might helpfully informed the Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic traditions in thought, attitude, doctrine and grace. But without the spiritual or Scriptural demand that those past, or present, church traditions must be modified towards any pretended Jewish form-and-function. That all Gentile traditions past, present, and future, may be content in-and-of themselves without any lessening of the divine grace of God through His Son.

That by trying to religiously observe the ancient Jewish culture (as perceived through the eyes of Judaism's contemporary orthodoxy) as a Christian man or woman is no more an act portending God's favor and righteousness than any other human acts wishing to add to Jesus' atoning salvation. A salvation that is at once Spirit-wrought by divine hands and not by human hands alone (or by traditions, teachings, acts of the flesh, lifestyle, attitudes... all is of human pride and self-rigtheousness). Rather, we utilize those traditions, teachings, acts of the flesh, lifestyles, attitudes as a testimony to our humanness and God's great grace in accepting us as we are and how we are. Nothing more and nothing less.

That the Gospel of Jesus does not require Gentiles to become any more Jewish than Jews are required to be any less Jewish. That God's Kingdom is formed of all nations and will not be Jewish alone so as to be more pleasing to Him. That the Gospel is founded on Jesus alone and not on man's traditions, customs, or any one particular culture that is any more sanctified than any other cultural grasp of the Lord Jesus. As such, this is the type of postmodern movement that we can stand behind and rightfully commend to any Christian wishing to follow the God of the Bible in His ways, heart, passion, and graces.

R.E. Slater

January 16, 2014

RVL | ON Green Pastures

Uploaded on Jul 14, 2011

Sheep in desert pastures need a shepherd to lead them. There is sufficient grass, but it is sparse. Sheep left on their own will wander searching for grass and eventually die. Staying close to their shepherd is a matter of life and death.

This clip is an excerpt from Ray Vander Laan's full-length Faith Lessons™ Vol. 12, Walking with God in the Desert.

View more clips and access the full-length Faith Lessons™ video series at: http://rvl-on.com

View complete series here: http://followtherabbi.com/

---

To read more about Orthodox Judaism go here:

Jewish Orthodoxy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_orthodoxy

The Jewish Talmud - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud#Manuscripts_and_textual_variants

Origins of Rabbinic Judaism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Rabbinic_Judaism

The Jewish Canon of Scripture, the Tanakh - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh

The Jewish Apocrypha/Pseudipigrapha (as part of the Tanakh) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_apocrypha
 and here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha (as distinguished from the Christian NT texts)

The Biologic Symphony of Life: Vibrating Protein Strings

Using a new imaging technique they developed, scientists have managed to observe and document the vibrations of lysozyme, an antibacterial protein found in many animals. This graphic visualizes the vibrations in lysozyme as it is excited by terahertz light (depicted by the red wave arrow). Such vibrations, long thought to exist, have never before been described in such detail, said lead researcher Andrea Markelz, a UB physicist. Credit: Andrea Markelz and Katherine Niessen.

January 2014

The symphony of life, revealed: New imaging technique captures vibrations of proteins

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-symphony-life-revealed-imaging-technique.html

Like the strings on a violin or the pipes of an organ, the proteins in the human body vibrate in different patterns, scientists have long suspected.

Now, a new study provides what researchers say is the first conclusive evidence that this is true.

Using a technique they developed based on terahertz near-field microscopy, scientists from the University at Buffalo and Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute (HWI) have for the first time observed in detail the vibrations of lysozyme, an antibacterial protein found in many animals.

The team found that the vibrations, which were previously thought to dissipate quickly, actually persist in molecules like the "ringing of a bell," said UB physics professor Andrea Markelz, PhD, who led the study.

These tiny motions enable proteins to change shape quickly so they can readily bind to other proteins, a process that is necessary for the body to perform critical biological functions like absorbing oxygen, repairing cells and replicating DNA, Markelz said.

The research opens the door to a whole new way of studying the basic cellular processes that enable life.

"People have been trying to measure these vibrations in proteins for many, many years, since the 1960s," Markelz said. "In the past, to look at these large-scale, correlated motions in proteins was a challenge that required extremely dry and cold environments and expensive facilities."

"Our technique is easier and much faster," she said. "You don't need to cool the proteins to below freezing or use a synchrotron light source or a nuclear reactor—all things people have used previously to try and examine these vibrations."

The findings will appear in Nature Communications on Jan. 16, and publication of information on the research is prohibited until 5 a.m. U.S. Eastern Time on that day.

To observe the protein vibrations, Markelz' team relied on an interesting characteristic of proteins: The fact that they vibrate at the same frequency as the light they absorb.

This is analogous to the way wine glasses tremble and shatter when a singer hits exactly the right note. Markelz explained: Wine glasses vibrate because they are absorbing the energy of sound waves, and the shape of a glass determines what pitches of sound it can absorb. Similarly, proteins with different structures will absorb and vibrate in response to light of different frequencies.

So, to study vibrations in lysozyme, Markelz and her colleagues exposed a sample to light of different frequencies and polarizations, and measured the types of light the protein absorbed.

This technique, developed with Edward Snell, a senior research scientist at HWI and assistant professor of structural biology at UB, allowed the team to identify which sections of the protein vibrated under normal biological conditions. The researchers were also able to see that the vibrations endured over time, challenging existing assumptions.

"If you tap on a bell, it rings for some time, and with a sound that is specific to the bell. This is how the proteins behave," Markelz said. "Many scientists have previously thought a protein is more like a wet sponge than a bell: If you tap on a wet sponge, you don't get any sustained sound."

Markelz said the team's technique for studying vibrations could be used in the future to document how natural and artificial inhibitors stop proteins from performing vital functions by blocking desired vibrations.

"We can now try to understand the actual structural mechanisms behind these biological processes and how they are controlled," Markelz said.

"The cellular system is just amazing," she said. "You can think of a cell as a little machine that does lots of different things—it senses, it makes more of itself, it reads and replicates DNA, and for all of these things to occur, proteins have to vibrate and interact with one another."

The Great Passion of an "Impassable" God

Mr. Spock’s [Stoic] God: The [Great] Mistake of Western Theology

http://ourrabbijesus.com/articles/mr-spocks-god-mistake-of-western-theology/

by Lois Tverberg

January 15, 2014

I admit it. As a kid, I was a rabid Star Trek fan. Mr. Spock’s philosophy was brilliant, to my preteen thinking. He had purged all emotions from his psyche in order to live only by cool-headed reason. All anger, sorrow and fear were barred from his thoughts, allowing him to be perfectly rational at all times.

Sure, emotions like empathy, joy, and love had to go too. But how could you be wrong when you could calculate every potential outcome to the fifth decimal place?

Later in life, I discovered that Mr. Spock’s creators had unearthed this idea in classic Greek philosophy. My pointy-eared Vulcan hero was pursuing the Stoic ideal of apatheia—seeking virtue by rejecting all passions, by becoming indifferent to pain or pleasure.

Many Greco-Roman philosophers saw emotions as fleshly and evil, uncontrollable and opposed to reason. Obviously, in their minds, the supreme God could not be so weak as to express emotion. God must be impassible—impervious to passions like anger and sorrow, unaffected by the misery of the human condition. Aristotle’s God was the “prime mover,” but he himself was unmoved—he was pure thought, devoid of all feelings.

The idea that emotions are irrational and unnatural arose from Greco-Roman philosophy and has influenced Western theology for thousands of years. We moderners find God’s passions in the Old Testament embarrassing. But what if we looked at Israel’s God from a Middle Eastern perspective, which embraces his emotional reality?

Ken Bailey has discovered a wealth of insight on the parables, especially the prodigal son, from his study of traditional cultures of the Middle East. Throughout his travels, he’s asked his Arab subjects one question hundreds of times: “Have you ever known a son to come to his father and demand his inheritance?” The answer is always the same: it would be unthinkable. It would be an unspeakable outrage, a gross insult to one’s father and family.

Bailey tells the story of one pastor whose parishioner who came to him in great anguish, exclaiming, “My son wants me to die!” The man’s son had broached the question of his inheritance. In that culture, the son’s inquiry expressed a wish for his father’s demise. The elderly man was in good health, but three months later he passed away. His wife lamented, “He died that night!” The offense was so great that in a sense, the man died the very night his son had spoken to him.

Bailey’s insights on this parable reveal a basic error in how Western Christians understand sin and God’s response. We see sin as the breaking of arbitrary rules, as accruing parking violations and speeding tickets in a heavenly court system. If we put our faith in Christ, his atoning sacrifice will pay the fine. In this scenario, God is a callous, uncaring judge whose concern is that the law be upheld and the penalty paid in full.

The portrayal of sin in Jesus’ parable, however, is that of a broken relationship, a personal offense against a loving Father. The son’s actions would have been profoundly hurtful to his family as he cashed in their property for his own gain. Sin does not just “break the rules” and annoy a strict policeman; it is a direct, personal rejection of our loving heavenly Father, who cares for us deeply.

Anger in Tension with Love

The wounded anger of a deserted father is a far cry from the aloof judgment that many of us mistakenly see in the God of the Old Testament. Rather than God being distant and unfeeling, a more biblical understanding is that God’s anger at sin exists in tension with his overwhelming love.

The same passionate concern for humanity that causes God’s anger is also the source of his tenacious, everlasting love that bursts out in joy when his children finally come home.

All of the prophets, in fact, express God’s anguish when his children abandon him, and how he restrains his wrath at sin out of his hesed, his mercy and loving kindness.

This is the Old Testament God’s answer to our angry question, “How can you be so indifferent to the evil in the world?” Our accusations are actually against the impassible God that we’ve conjured up out of our own imagination!

The real God is just the opposite, because indifference to evil is in itself evil. Rabbi Abraham Heschel writes,

There is an evil which most of us condone and are even guilty of: indifference to evil. We remain neutral, impartial, and not easily moved by the wrongs done unto other people. All prophecy is one great exclamation; God is not indifferent to evil! He is always concerned, He is personally affected by what man does to man…This is one of the meanings of the anger of God: the end of indifference!

Man’s sense of injustice is a poor analogy to God’s sense of injustice. The exploitation of the poor is to us a misdemeanor, to God it is a disaster. Our reaction is disapproval; God’s reaction is something no language can convey. Is it a sign of cruelty that God’s anger is aroused when the rights of the poor are violated, when widows and orphans are oppressed?

If God is not wounded by his people’s suffering or angered at their cruelty toward each other, he would be a God who cannot love, theologian Jürgen Moltmann concludes. In The Crucified God he writes,

A God who cannot suffer is poorer than any human. For a God who is incapable of suffering is a being who cannot be involved. Suffering and injustice do not affect him. And because he is so completely insensitive, he cannot be affected or shaken by anything. He cannot weep, for he has no tears. But the one who cannot suffer cannot love either. So he is also a loveless being.

God’s powerful emotions made perfect sense in a society where passions were embraced, where tears of mourning and songs of joy were a normal part of life. The Greek rejection of emotions arose out of an intellectual pride that was willing to sacrifice one’s full humanity for the sake of being in constant control.

God is not indifferent or disinterested—he’s an Arab father who is crushed by his son’s apparent lack of love. God is a mother bear who roars a warning if you get too close to her cubs. God is a jilted boyfriend who’s beside himself when he spots his true-love on another guy’s arm. Israel’s God is not less emotional than we are, he is even more.

A God Who is Grieved by Evil

If you’re looking for God’s unflinching judgment, the place you’d most expect to find it is at the time of Noah. You’d expect to find God nearly exploding with fury at the wicked deeds of humanity, when humankind had filled the world with violence, when “every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5).

But instead of wrath, the Bible says that God was grieved, that God’s heart was full of pain. A murderous gangrene had infected his precious children, causing them to destroy themselves and each other. God’s anguish was so great that he even regretted making humankind.

In Hebrew there’s a connection between God’s pain and that of fallen humanity. Because of Eve’s sin, her sorrow (etzev, ET-tsev) in bearing children will multiply, and Adam will labor in sorrow (etzev) to make the earth produce food. (Genesis 3:16-19) This is the same word that describes God’s sorrow when his heart is “grieved” in Genesis 6:5 (Noah). Like Eve, God’s precious children would now fill his heart with pain; and like Adam, his beautiful earth would now be cursed by human bloodshed. Adam and Eve’s sorrows were a small taste of the pain God himself felt at his broken world.

Our world today is still filled with violence—we’re no different than the generation that made God regret he had created us. When you consider the mass graves of the genocides of this past century, you realize that humans really are capable of evil beyond the limits of the imagination. Yet, after the flood God promised, “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done” (Genesis 8:21).

Why was God’s response to evil different than before?

Here, in the Scripture’s first pages, I wonder if we don’t see God’s answer to the classic question, “If God is good and all powerful, why doesn’t he destroy evil?” In the flood epic, God revealed what his righteous response to human evil would be—universal judgment. God bears with corrupt humanity because the alternative is the death of every sinner on earth. The fact that a good God does not destroy evil is not because he’s impotent—it’s because he’s merciful.

God’s Costly Covenant

We discover God’s mercy in his very next words, when he makes a covenant in Genesis 9. In this very first covenant he ever made with humankind, he committed himself to find another answer to sin rather than just to destroy sinners. In embryonic form, this covenant points toward the coming of Christ.

For God, this decision had an enormous price. Walter Brueggemann explains, “God resolves that he will stay with, endure, and sustain his world, notwithstanding the sorry state of humankind… It is now clear that such a commitment on God’s part is costly. The God-world relation is not simply that of strong God and needy world. Now it is a tortured relation between a grieved God and a resistant world… This is a key insight of the gospel against every notion that God stands outside of the hurt as a judge.”

Terrence Fretheim also notes, “Given God’s decision to bear with the creation in all of its wickedness, this means for God a continuing grieving of the heart. Thus the promise to Noah and all flesh in Gen. 9:8-17 necessitates divine suffering. By deciding to endure a wicked world, while continuing to open up the heart to that world, means that God has decided to take personal suffering upon God’s own self.”

God opts to suffer alongside his people because he loves them in spite of their sinfulness. From the moment he made that decision, we see the passionate love that ultimately led to the cross, to bring his prodigal children back to him. And we see his overwhelming joy when a single sinner repents and turns homeward.

The more you see God’s heart, the more you see the character of Christ from the very first pages of Genesis. Our dual images of God in the Testaments start to merge together when we see that the suffering of Christ began in his Father’s heart at the dawn of creation, when we see God our Father bearing the cross for our sins. It’s only when we focus the two images into one that we gain spiritual “depth perception” and begin to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of God.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Condensed and excerpted from the chapter “Our Longing Father” in Walking in the Dust of Rabbi Jesus (Zondervan, 2012), pages 165-178. For a fuller discussion and for quotation references, see the book.

For further reading, an outstanding resource is Abraham Heschel’s The Prophets (New York: Harper, 2001), p 285-413.

Rebuilding the Faith - Dr. Carin Bondar Spoofs Miley's "Wrecking Ball" Torch Song

Carin Bondar tests out Face Recognition Binoculars

Rebuilding the Faith

Miley Cyrus move over. Yes, Dr. Carin Bondar’s remake of the infamous Wrecking Ball is "spoof + science" at its parody best. Wishing to "smash" creationist's notions the good scientist parodies popular shrift worthy of destruction. As the lyrics state,

Organisms do evolve

That giant mystery’s been (re)solved

Creationism’s proven false

Get familiar with our phylogeny.

Difficult words to sing for the Christian who believes in God and who seeks a deeper explanation for creation's existence beyond the mere rhyme of words stating there is none. When the great scientist Laplace was asked at the court of Napoleon where the Creator-God was in all his formulations, he was heard to famously quipped, "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis." So too has the great physicist Stephen Hawking recently asked in his treatise entitled The Grand Design, three simple questions to the reader (10):

1) Why is there something rather than nothing?

2) Why do we exist?

3) Why this particular set of laws and not some other?

And based upon scientific determinism (sic, the key to Hawking's dilemma) God did not have any latitude in choosing the laws of the universe.(33) Hence, there are no miracles, nor any exceptions to the laws of nature.(34) Which are serious conclusions to make and must be grappled with by the serious believer wishing to understand his Creator.

To these questions Relevancy22 has been exploring these grand questions from an evolutionary, scientific, philosophic, and theologic viewpoint. Arguing for an Evolutionary Creationism as distinguished from the heartfelt creationist's non-evolutionary system that many believers continue to cling too. Here, at this site, we wish to reframe many of Christianity's more classically-derived church doctrines around the contemporary, postmodern doctrinal discussions that do now admit evolution into the bible without losing the God of creation either in its dogmas nor in its doctrinal formulations as they are perceived by pew and bible scholar.

So then, how should we listen to Dr. Carin Bondar, Laplace, or Hawking when arguing for an evolution perhaps devoid of any God but its own systems alone? We do so both soberly and mindfully. Not in denial, but in a fuller, more theologically-based approach, which admits and does not deny, the seriousness of these profound scientific observations, nor dismiss the existence of a Creator-God who is effectively unfalsifiable. Who has chosen to create through the process of evolution which we, as believers, must come to understand and accept, not fearing that the God of evolution will be misplaced or found absent in it all.

Yes, physical nature does do quite well. It was created that way! But not on its own... as a godless-based evolution might like to remind... but because of a wise and powerful Creator God who has affectively, and effectively, used this process to bring Hismself into a creative fellowship in an amazing way. To the questions of sin, free will, the first humans, how to read the Word, and many more, the reader may peruse the "chapters" or "posts" of this website (or web blog) and hopefully find capable direction leading to better questions and explorations. At no time is scholarly discussion closed down or stopped. For it is to this scholarship that we as Christians must both listen and discern. Hopefully you will find both in these digital pages placed at your disposal.

At the last, do not be offended by the good scientist's parody below. It is because of these concerns that I and others like Dr. Bondar have come along similar paths asking the same questions that the older system of creationism could not answer - no matter how it tried to reframe the philosophical and theological debates around classical concerns. In truth, evolution does run quite well on its "own." But for the believer we know who the real "Owner" is, and what makes it "tick" as the God of all creation.

And so, enjoy the parody, and do take seriously the science of evolution, especially as from a Christian perspective. And don't let it remain the bug-a-boo that so many would make it out to be based upon illegitimate agnostic or atheist charges to the contrary. There are many a good, thinking Christian scientist out there who can firmly attest to the God of the Bible within the ranks of their university, research lab, and field studies. Certainly they are evolutionists. But they are also godly believers who see the Creator's handiwork everywhere about when measure by time and space, process and curriculum.

R.E. Slater

January 14, 2013

Organisms Do Evolve

Carin's website

Published on Jan 12, 2014

"I am always troubled by the lack of awareness surrounding the process of evolution by natural selection. Also, I am a crazy dorky scientist who enjoys many aspects of pop culture. I'm a Miley fan, and when I first saw 'Wrecking Ball' it was just irresistible for me to parody it! Here are the full lyrics." - Carin

They fought, they strained, their lives in vain,

They thought, always asking why,

Not blessed but shunned, the world was stunned,

But facts, no one could deny.

You might think you know, only just suppose,

What you're told isn't true,

Facts you can't deny, science doesn't lie,

There is actual proof.

That organisms do evolve,

That giant mystery's been solved,

Creationism's proven false,

Get familiar with our phylogeny.

Yes, our phylogeny.

There's A, there's C, there's T, there's G,

They're called nucleotides,

The helix turns with no concern,

For Gods, or religious lives.

Gene diversity, stochasticity,

Just the fittest survive,

Then they procreate, and some genes mutate,

Varied forms are derived.

Yes organisms do evolve,

The experts have worked hard to solve,

The complex processes involved,

In the earth's history.

Yes organisms do evolve,

There's no more mystery to solve,

Fundamental to life overall,

Get familiar with our biology.

Scholarship and science answer for,

Absolute complexities within,

Both extant and extinct creature forms,

Understanding that is not a sin.

Scholarship and science answer for,

Incidents where divergence begins,

Understanding that is not a sin,

You might think you know, only just suppose.

What you're told isn't true.

Cuz' organisms do evolve,

There's no more mystery to solve,

Creationism's proven false.

Get familiar with our phylogeny,

Yes organisms do evolve,

Such complex processes resolved,

Fundamental to life overall,

Aim to understand our biology.

It's our biology.

(click to enlarge)

Confessions of an Evolving Baptist

Confessions of an Evolving Baptist

http://theamericanjesus.net/?p=11179

by Nathan Hale

November 27, 2013

I will never forget the shock and confusion in my wife’s voice when I told her that I believed in evolution. I wasn’t ready to come out of the closet quite yet, but secret conversations about my belief in evolution were on the verge of being exposed and I knew I had to confess before she found out from someone else.

I could tell implications of such a statement passed like a whirlwind through her mind. She knew I had been struggling with the church and my faith for quite some time – but this?

I had not talked to her about it before. I was embarrassed and scared. How did I explain that it took embracing evolution before I found a faith that was real and meaningful?

* * *

I’m not interested in debating the specifics on why I’ve come to believe in evolution. I’m happy to talk about it, but it’s really not that important actually. The more important question is how I found my footing in the aftermath.

A year of honest inquiry left me with an overwhelming certainty about evolution and an overwhelming uncertainty about my faith. I was miserable. Everything I thought I knew was turned upside down.

I suddenly found myself dangling on the edge of the cliff holding on with one hand that was slipping. I could feel the crossroad quickly approaching – do I choose science or my faith?

Many Christians would point to my example as evidence of the damaging influence of secular science on the faith of believers. I don’t think so – at all.

In the midst of the chaos I stopped and asked myself a simple question – who said I had to choose and why?

That simple question sent me on a quest to understand the relationships between science and religion. I found myself wandering around in this magical place full of undiscovered treasures – the library. Four racks of books all devoted to various aspects of the larger dialogue between science and religion. Treasures left sitting on the racks untouched for 30-40 years.

I was surprised at some things I learned but it didn’t take long to uncover one truth – I do not have to choose.

I’ve been presented with (or perhaps internalized) a false dichotomy.

There has always been some level of tension. In the past however, this tension served to advance dialogue and promote thinking among both scientists and theologians.

What surprised me the most was learning the conflict between these seemingly opposing worldviews is a relatively recent one – the unholy progeny of the more recent culture war between Atheists and Christians.

Evolution has become a philosophical sword wielded by Atheists to strike at the heart of Christian truth claims. Christians on the other hand, have launched a counter offensive by emphasizing a literal reading of the scripture and developing their own scientific explanations for the biblical accounts of creation.

A long, complex, and mutually beneficial dialogue between science and religion reduced to an overly simplistic philosophical choice – a false dichotomy perpetuated.

I’m not buying it.

Being confronted with evolution may have been the catalyst for asking the difficult questions, but the real problem for me was not evolution – it was biblical literalism.

It was the attempts to read science back into the Bible and the ultimatum of believing the Bible is either entirely true or entirely false. That’s a damaging position I contend and has created as many Atheists/Agnostics as it has converts.

I have hurt some feelings with this statement in the past but I think my comments are largely misunderstood.

I’m not attempting to cast doubt on the authority of scripture – it’s simply a plea to better understand the complexity and richness of the text.

I believe the Bible is truth in what is teaches and is the primary authority for guiding the Christian life. In that sense I believe scripture is inerrant.

At the same time I also appreciate the complexity and origins of the text. The Bible is a complex library of history, law, poetry, wisdom, gospel, epistles, and apocalyptic literature – but it was written in a time, place, culture, and language that is not ours.

Those realities should be considered when reading the text.

Does that make it less relevant? No.

To appreciate the complexities of the text is not an insult to God or the Bible – quite the contrary. For me it fosters a deeper desire to understand and appreciate both.

* * *

I’ve come to realize there is another path on the crossroads of having to choose between science and faith. The path is less traveled and overgrown. It’s a path full of briars and thistles growing outward from the two more clear paths. It’s a difficult path to pass but an important one. A path that attempts to reconcile these seemingly opposing worldviews – the path I had to travel.

Reconciling evolution with my faith and gaining a better understanding of the Bible allowed me to grab the cliff’s edge with my second hand and pull myself to the top.

For reasons most will never understand that’s what it took for me to find a real, meaningful faith.

For the most part I’ve been content to keep my journey to myself. However, I recently had a moment of clarity during a very spirit filled communion service.

Even by conservative standards – the issue is not central to salvation.

It certainly poses some challenges and requires a thorough reading of the scriptures and some deep thought. But shouldn’t we be doing that anyway?

Why then, are we continually perpetuating the notion of having to choose between science and religion? Why is the utterance of the “E” word in Christian circles immediately met with condemnation and judgment? Why am I scared and embarrassed to talk openly about it?

I’ve come to realize that if I’m not open about my journey then I’m perpetuating a problem that almost caused me to let go of the cliff’s edge – and for no good reason.

Nathan is the husband to a beautiful wife, father to three wonderful children, researcher, teacher, and occasional writer/blogger. He can be found on Twitter at @evolvingbaptist.