Friday, July 18, 2025

Beyond the Babel - Chaos to Clarity: Reclaiming Paul's Teaching on Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14


Friends, I believe the passages we're currently examining in 1 Corinthians 14 are among the most crucial, and perhaps the most challenging, chapters to interpret in the entire Bible. Their gravity stems from the profound danger posed by the infiltration of mysticism and pagan practices into regular church worship. The peril was so significant that almost successful attempts were made to insert supportive (and controversial) passages into Mark 16 – highlighting just how grave this spiritual battle truly is.

But I want to assure you: while confusion and deception may be intent, the Spirit of God is even more purposeful in bringing clarity and order.

Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 14 are not suggestions; they are divine directives for restoring proper, edifying worship. Let's look at excerpts from verses 26-40:

"If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God." (1 Corinthians 14:27-28, ESV)

Consider the implications of these two verses alone: A staggering 90% of what is seen in the modern charismatic movement would be immediately wiped out by Paul's clear commands. If no interpreter is present, silence is the mandate. This is a far cry from the widespread, uninterpreted utterances common today.

Furthermore, Paul addresses specific conduct:

"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:33-34, ESV)

It's no hidden secret that a significant portion of the modern tongues movement is either primarily women-led or heavily involves women in public, vocal roles that contravene this specific instruction. Even where men take prominence, the vocal involvement of women in public ecstatic speech is unmistakably notable. This highlights a direct conflict with apostolic teaching on church order.


Paul's Hyperbole and the "Tongues" Distinction

Now, let's address a verse often used to justify private tongues, 1 Corinthians 14:18:

"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue." (ESV)

Does Paul's statement, delivered with evident hyperbole (a common rhetorical device he uses, for example, when he says he's "the least of the apostles" or "last of all" in 1 Cor 15:9 or "in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure" in 2 Cor 11:23), truly endorse the use of private, unintelligible tongues? Or does his contrast in verse 19 demonstrate his true priority?

Notice the incredible wisdom of the Holy Spirit in how this passage is preserved in the original Greek and accurately translated in word-for-word versions like the ESV. Observe the distinction Paul makes:

  • He opens verse 18 with "I speak in tongues" (plural).

  • But he closes verse 19 with "than ten thousand words in a tongue" (singular).

When you see such seemingly subtle variations in the Bible, know that they are never accidental. The Spirit of God did not randomly place this distinction there. This should make you wonder: Why did the Spirit see the need to use the word in both its singular and plural forms?

The answer is profound clarity:

  • "Tongues" (plural - glōssais): Every time Paul uses the plural "tongues" in 1 Corinthians 14, he is referring to the real gift of languages – known, human languages that can be interpreted (as demonstrated in Acts 2). These are genuine, divine abilities to speak foreign languages.

  • "A tongue" (singular - glōssē): But you cannot pluralize gibberish. Gibberish is just gibberish; it's meaningless babble. Every time Paul uses the singular "a tongue" (or "the tongue" when referring to the chaotic practice), the Spirit of God is referring to ecstatic, unintelligible babble – the uninterpreted, chaotic utterances borrowed from pagan practices.

Undoubtedly, the King James translation committee of 1611 made this crucial observation, attempting to clarify by inserting "unknown" before "tongue" in every instance where the singular form was used, to distinguish it from the genuine gift of "tongues" (languages). While "unknown" isn't in the original Greek, it reflects their understanding of Paul's differentiation.

Now, read the whole of 1 Corinthians 14 again, with this powerful distinction in mind. See what profound clarity it gives you regarding Paul's intentions and the chaotic situation he was addressing.


The Divine Mandate for Order

The Spirit of God aptly closes this entire discussion with a timeless principle for all worship and spiritual practice:

"But all things should be done decently and in order." (1 Corinthians 14:40, ESV)

This verse is not a mere suggestion; it's a divine mandate. It's the ultimate litmus test for any spiritual practice claiming to be from God. Is it decent? Is it orderly? If not, then it falls outside the blueprint for worship given by the Holy Spirit Himself.


What are your thoughts on this interpretation? How has understanding this distinction impacted your view of 1 Corinthians 14? Share your insights in the comments below!


Wednesday, July 16, 2025

The Unspoken Language of Heaven: Unpacking the "Groans" in Romans 8:26


Have you ever found yourself burdened so heavily that words just couldn't express the depth of your longing or distress? That profound, unutterable ache in your soul? The Bible often speaks to these deeply human, yet intensely spiritual, moments. One verse that frequently comes up in this context is Romans 8:26.

Paul writes:

"Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words."

This powerful verse describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us with what the text calls "groanings too deep for words." This raises a critical, and often debated, question: Does this mean the Holy Spirit speaks in tongues?

Some traditions interpret this verse to mean precisely that – suggesting the "groanings" are a form of ecstatic, unknown language, perhaps even a "language of the gods."

But Let's Examine the Context

Before we jump to conclusions, let's consider a parallel passage in the same chapter. Just a few verses earlier, in Romans 8:22, the Apostle Paul also states:

"For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now."

If the Holy Spirit "groans" and that implies speaking in tongues, then by the same logic, does "the whole creation groaning" mean the trees, mountains, and oceans are speaking in tongues too? Of course not!

Moreover, the very phrase used for the Spirit's intercession is crucial: "groanings that CANNOT BE UTTERED." This implies an expression that is beyond spoken words, not composed of random syllables or any humanly intelligible (or even unintelligible, yet spoken) language. The nature of these groans is that they cannot be articulated verbally.

From Partial to Perfect: The "Groans" and 1 Corinthians 13

This understanding brings us to a crucial point, and it beautifully builds a bridge to our upcoming discussion on "the Perfect Thing" mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13.

In this famous chapter on love, Paul contrasts our current understanding with a future state:

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears." (1 Corinthians 13:9-10 NIV)

This passage clearly states that "the partial will be done away with." Our current partial knowledge, our partial prophecies, even our need for preaching in the same way – these will diminish. Why? Because, as Paul explains, "we will know fully, just as we are fully known" (v.12).

Divine Knowing Transcends Language

So, what does this "knowing fully" truly mean?

  • Is this a profound, mind-to-mind communion with God Himself, transcending all need for verbal communication?

  • Consider Jesus: Did He need spoken language to read the minds of people?

    • He knew Nathanael's character before Philip even called him (John 1:48).

    • He repeatedly exposed the silent thoughts of the Pharisees (Matthew 9:4).

  • Does the very nature of deity require language to comprehend or communicate?

  • Is there truly a "language of/for the Gods" in a literal, phonetic sense, or is divine knowing a higher form of understanding that operates beyond such human constructs?

Surely, as we grow in our faith, we must reach a point where we are willing to ask ourselves these daring questions. Let's challenge our current, sometimes "childish," ways of thinking about spiritual truths, as our passage implies. It's time to delve deeper and truly grasp what it means when "the perfect comes." Let's put away superficial interpretations and earnestly seek profound, unadulterated truth.

In its very perfection, God's realm and His communication operate outside human language. Divine knowing transcends any known – or unknown, for that matter – human-like language. It's a knowing that is complete, intimate, and utterly profound.



Monday, April 24, 2023

The Sign of the Son of Man

In Isaiah 13:10, the Bible predicts that the heavenly lights will go black, The sun and the stars will not give light on the second coming of the Son of Man.


"For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine."


In Matthew 24:29-30, the prophecy is further clarified


"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."


And again in Revelation 6:12-13


"And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind."


Just as a bright heavenly object announced the arrival of the Lord upon the earth during the visit of the Magi so too will His Second Coming be heralded. But whereas only the Magi saw This "great sign" in Matthew chapter 2, on his second coming it  will be seen by all people.


Revelation 6:15

"And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains"


But how did the Magi know about the sign, and how come only they saw it when it first came? The messianic prophecy of Balaam in Numbers 24:17 holds the first key to unlocking this mystery . . .




Friday, March 16, 2018

Candle of Love

Equal opportunity is to all men,

To be the light of the world,

To cast their spells of abundance,

Cast thee your spell,

Light your candle,

Then hand it out,

For in good measure,

Pressed down - Shaken together - Running over

Shall men give unto your bosom

For with the same mete,

So it shall be meted unto you,

Light up the candle of love

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Creatio ex Nihilio

Intro:

"Whichever believe you will ever hold about how this universe, and indeed life itself came into existence, one fact will always remain: 'that creation essentially emerged from nothing'"

"The big bang" and "Let there be light" have always had common denominators that may have escaped us in the feuding that we got caught in between the two theories. One such glaring denominator lies in the profound theories of young Einstein. Time dilation for instance, the implication of the Theory of Relativity that time would essentially stop, no past and no future, nothing but just the present, for anything or anyone who could accelerate to the speed of light. By implication it would mean that they would be everywhere, know everything since they can see all that has ever happened or will ever happen, and with the ability to be everywhere, know everything even before it happens, comes the ability to alter the future and thus be all powerful. What have I just said?

"That attaining the speed of light is likely to make you god like"

Could Einstein have been referring to God in his Theory of Relativity? Then there is the energy mass equivalence implication of Relativity E = mc2: that energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable; they are two forms of the same thing; Energy is liberated matter, and mater is energy waiting to happen. It was not until people really understood the implications of the Theory of Relativity and E = mc2 that they realized the vast amounts of energy packed in every molecule of matter. This is the stuff that nuclear bombs are made of.

"It is said that an average adult will contain about 7x1018 joules of potential energy – enough to explode with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs – That's assuming he knew how to liberate it."

Does E = mc2   provide the conclusive link between "The big bang" and "let there be light"? Is it likely that God is a vast energy reserve part of which somehow transmuted into the universe?  Let's explore these possibilities further ….. Read more

Creatio ex Nihilio

"In the Beginning"

Let's start by watching how they say it all began and how it has panned out since then – click here.I do not wholly agree with their account of how it happened, so here is the version I would rather have: Long before anything existed there was, waaaiiit for it - NOTHING! Well, not absolutely correct, there was a minuscule mote.

"A spot so infinitesimally compact that it has no dimensions at all" says Bill Bryson in his book 'A Short History of Nearly Everything'.

"It is natural but wrong to visualize 'it' as a kind of pregnant dot hanging in a dark, boundless void. But there is no space, no darkness.  'It' has no around around it. There is no space for it to occupy, no place for it to be, we can't even ask how long it has been there – whether it has just lately popped into being, like a good idea, or whether it has been there forever, quietly awaiting the right moment. Time doesn't exist. There is no past for it to emerge from." Continues Bryson and then concludes,

"And so, from nothing, our universe begins."

And that's an undisputable fact of all existence, inescapable, but that's just about as incontrovertible as it gets.  Today I just want to dive straight into the thick of things by asking you to take a personal choice on whether you think this "dot" was conscious or not, was it aware of itself? Was it intelligent?

If you think it was, then you are likely to also think that what ensued was deliberate intentioned consequence. If you think not, then you are likely to see what ensued as nothing but a random and inevitable transition triggered by some unknown factors. The first choice would out rightly make you a theist, and your 'infinitesimal spot' would by inference be God. The latter choice would make you an atheist and you are likely to refer to the infinitesimal spot not as God but instead you would label it the 'Singularity'. For a little while there I had the temptation to label the second lot 'scientists'  after all , it was them that coined the name 'the singularity' but that would be erroneous wouldn't it? Many scientists actually do believe in God. As matter of fact, Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaitre who first proposed what came to be referred to as 'The Big Bang Theory' was an ordained catholic minister.

For now, we will do just fine settling for both; God and Singularity.  What was it like? We know that it always existed in all eons in the likely form of dark matter, or packed raw energy, I really don't know, so allow me to borrow an apt description from Bryson once more:

"if you want to build a universe 'you will need to gather up everything there is – every last mote and particle of matter between here and the edge of creation – and squeeze it into a spot so infinitesimally compact that it has no dimensions at all….. Then get ready for a really big bang.….. outside the singularity there is no where, when the universe begins to expand, it won't be spreading out to fill a larger emptiness. The only space that exists is the space it creates as it goes."

Where the singularity came from, well, that's about the only thing that evolutionary old earth proponents leave unanswered. Some argue that the singularity may have been as a result of an earlier collapsed universe, and that the Big Bang was merely one of many transitions.

"These are very close to religious questions" Dr. Andrei Linde. A cosmetologist at Stanford, told the New York Times in 2001.

Very close to religious questions indeed. It seems impossible that you could get something from nothing. But the fact that once there was nothing and now there is a universe is evident proof that you can. For science, the Singularity is just about the only instance in which this happened – allow me to rephrase -  You see, in a world devoid of God we never see things jumping into existence out of nothingness, but atheists will make one small exception to this rule;

mainly the universe and everything in it.

John 1: 1-5

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.  In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

But in a world with the remotest possibility of a deity and for the theist, these things are common place: Celestial beings pop up from nowhere and appear to humans all the time, to Abraham, to Jacob….. ordinary things can often reform and deform into extra ordinary things all the time, a stick can turn into a snake, water in the river can turn into blood, waters in the sea can part to create dry land, a stone can turn into a spring, a fire can appear from nowhere and start burning a bush, a jar of oil that never runs dry, men walking in a furnace without burning and so on.

And the ultimate, the shocking deeds of a man that walked around the villages turning water into wine, raising the dead, healing infirmities by mere command, walking on water, commanding the elements. Think for a moment about the more than 20,000 who witnessed two fish in a basket lifted up in the air, and when the  basket came down with it came enough fish to feed the whole crowd, and not once but on two separate occasions, how would you go about convincing them that something can never come out of nothing? And think about the more than 500 who saw and heard a man they had just seen die three days before, what would you say to them? That they were all hallucinating? In the exact same moment? "See the most astounding fact" Theists believe in an all knowing, all powerful and all present God with the capacity to create something out of nothing and thus the Bible begins in the first verse of Genesis

Gen 1:1

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

Let's halt for a minute here and really, seriously think about this 'Creatio Ex Nihilio - Created Out of Nothing' business. Out of nothing really? How can this be? Let's bring a young Einstein into the picture, then you are likely to suddenly realize that something out of nothing is no longer that unfathomable, It's really not completely unthinkable, religion has always considered it conceivable but it was not until 1905 that science started to see the possibilities of transmutation, deforming, reforming and so forth between different forms of matter and energy. In this year, young Einstein working at the Swiss Office of Patents wrote a paper titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". That paper was the predecessor of The Special Theory of Relativity and the subsequent Theory of General Relativity that was published later in 1916

The Theory of Relativity

 

carlLet's now briefly study one of sciences most profound theories, The Theory of Relativity. Let's find out how it's been expounded upon since the time of Einstein, and see if the Bible has anything for or against its implications. Formulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, the theory of relativity is the notion that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. The theory explains the behavior of objects in space and time, and it can be used to predict everything from the existence of black holes, to light bending due to gravity, to the behavior of the planet Mercury in its orbit.

The theory is deceptively simple. First, there is no "absolute" frame of reference. Every time you measure an object's velocity, or its momentum, or how it experiences time, it's always in relation to something else. Second, the speed of light is the same no matter who measures it or how fast the person measuring it is going. Third, nothing can go faster than light.

The implications of Einstein's most famous theory are profound. If the speed of light is always the same, it means that an astronaut going very fast relative to the Earth will measure the seconds ticking by slower than an earthbound observer will — time essentially slows down for the astronaut, a phenomenon called time dilation. And if one can possibly get to the speed of light, like say God would, then time essentially stops. There is no past and no future, everything happens in the present, one can see both creation and apocalypse all at the same time. By implication it would mean that they would be everywhere, know everything since they can see all that has ever happened or will ever happen, and with the ability to be everywhere, know everything even before it happens comes the ability to alter the future and thus be all powerful. What did I just say? That attaining the speed of light is likely to make you God like. Could Einstein have been referring to God in the Theory of Relativity?

2 Peter 3:8

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Getting back to how the theory is explained, any object in a big gravity field is accelerating, so it will also experience time dilation. Meanwhile, the astronaut's spaceship will experience length contraction, which means that if you took a picture of the spacecraft as it flew by, it would look as though it were "squished" in the direction of motion. To the astronaut on board, however, all would seem normal. In addition, the mass of the spaceship would appear to increase from the point of view of people on Earth.

The theory encompasses two interrelated theories: special relativity and general relativity. Special relativity applies to elementary particles and their interactions, describing all their physical phenomena except gravity. General relativity explains the law of gravitation and its relation to other forces of nature. It applies to the cosmological and astrophysical realm, including astronomy.

The theory transformed theoretical physics and astronomy during the 20th century, superseding a 200-year-old theory of mechanics created primarily by Isaac Newton. It introduced concepts including spacetime as a unified entity of space and time, relativity of simultaneity, kinematic and gravitational time dilation, and length contraction. In the field of physics, relativity improved the science of elementary particles and their fundamental interactions, along with ushering in the nuclear age. With relativity, cosmology and astrophysics predicted extraordinary astronomical phenomena such as neutron stars, black holes, and gravitational waves.

Relativity remains the most famous scientific theory of the 20th century, but how well does it explain the things we see in our daily lives? General relativity has many surprising and counterintuitive consequences. Some of these are:

Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for one observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion.

 

Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock.

 

Fly across the world and you will step out of the plane a quinzillionth of a second younger than those you left behind

 

Relativistic mass

 

Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.

 

Mass–energy equivalence: E = mc2, energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable.

 

Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

 

The effect of Gravity can only travel through space at the speed of light, not faster or instantaneously

 

Clocks run slower in deeper gravitational wells. This is called gravitational time dilation.

 

Orbits precess in a way unexpected in Newton's theory of gravity. (This has been observed in the orbit of Mercury and in binary pulsars).

 

Rays of light bend in the presence of a gravitational field.

 

Rotating masses "drag along" the spacetime around them; a phenomenon termed "frame-dragging".

 

spacetime is curved and the universe is expanding, and the far parts of it are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

But you don't necessarily need a spaceship zooming at near the speed of light to see relativistic effects. In fact, there are several instances of relativity that we can see in our daily lives, and even technologies we use today that demonstrate that Einstein was right. Here are some ways we see relativity in action:

One of today's most relevant applications of relativity is the Global Positioning System: In order for your car's or phone's GPS navigation to function as accurately as it does, satellites have to take relativistic effects into account. This is because even though satellites aren't moving at anything close to the speed of light, they are still going pretty fast. The satellites are also sending signals to ground stations on Earth. These stations (and the GPS unit in your car) are all experiencing higher accelerations due to gravity than the satellites in orbit. To get that pinpoint accuracy, the satellites use clocks that are accurate to a few billionths of a second (nanoseconds). Since each satellite is 12,600 miles (20,300 kilometers) above Earth and moves at about 6,000 miles per hour (10,000 km/h), there's a relativistic time dilation that tacks on about 4 microseconds each day. Add in the effects of gravity and the figure goes up to about 7 microseconds. That's 7,000 nanoseconds. The difference is very real: if no relativistic effects were accounted for, a GPS unit that tells you it's a half mile (0.8 km) to the next gas station would be 5 miles (8 km) off after only one day.

But forget all this jargon about how fancy and revolutionary the Theory was, I just want us to focus on one thing: the Mass – Energy equivalence

E = mc2

That energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable; they are two forms of the same thing; Energy is liberated matter, and mater is energy waiting to happen.. It was not until people really understood the implications of Einstein theory of relativity and E = mc2 that they realized the vast amounts of energy packed in every molecule of matter. This is the stuff that nuclear bombs are made of.

It is said that an average adult will contain about 7x1018 joules of potential energy – enough to explode with the force of thirty very large hydrogen bombs – That's assuming he knew how to liberate it.

The search was earnestly on to try and liberate the inexhaustible energy source that was potent in all of matter.  And in events likely to forever remain dark reminders of just how wicked man can be, it was not until the morning of August 6th 1945 that Paul Tibbets, an American pilot on the cock pit of Enola Gay dropped 'Little boy' on the Japanese city of Hiroshima that this enormous power was publicly demonstrated. Little boy was loaded with 63kg of highly enriched uranium that yielded 15000 Tons of TNT equivalent. That was an enormous yield of blast energy especially considering that only 1.38% of the uranium actually fissioned.  Three days later on August 9th Major Charles W. Sweeney piloting Boeing B-29 Superfortress Bockscar dropped "Fat Man" On Nagasaki. Fat Man had a Plutonium filling weight of 6.2Kg and a blast yield of 21000 Tons. Since then the nuclear race was on: Russia, Japan, China, North Korea, Iran and the list goes on.

 Nuclear science has since been put to better uses, its foremost use will however always remain ominous to humanity.  Today The USS Carl Vinson for instance is one of ten Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers operated by the United States Navy with the latest in the series becoming the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS George W. Bush.

Propulsion for the USS Carl Vinson is provided by her twin Westinghouse-brand A4W nuclear-powered reactors. These feed four large propeller shafts at a reported 260,000 shaft horsepower allowing for speeds of up to 30 knots. This Aircraft carrier can go on 25 years fulltime duty without refueling. With zero carbon footprint, nuclear power could very likely be the silver bullet in saving the planet from imminent devastation from fossil fuel use. We have yet to find ways to convert most of matter into energy, or energy back into matter, but this clearly gives you a hint of what can possibly be done.

Now let's go back to that infinitesimal mote from which we started, and imagine all of the universe's matter packed into an energy cell the size of a dot. Now think of Einstein's E = mc2.

You know it is actually reported that when Randall Thomas Davidson the then Archbishop of Canterbury heard about the theory of relativity, he went to Einstein and asked him what effect it would have on Christianity. "None whatsoever" Einstein said. Could Einstein probably have implied that this was really the cradle of religion, the very essence and nature of God, the beginning of creation and its very sustenance? That this was nothing new, it was the stuff of the ancient of days.

"Could Einstein have been referring to God in the Theory of Relativity?" I can't help but ask again.

 "We will do just fine settling for both; God and Singularity.  What was it like?" I asked earlier on: You know, I have actually done a lot of thinking on this, and if you asked me what God is like, I would have to say "God is Light". Light must be the essence of God. The phrase "God is light" appears in 1 John 1:5, where the apostle John is explaining that the message we have from Jesus Christ is that God is light and there is no darkness in Him at all. Light is the nature and character of God. He is not a light or a kind of light; He is light itself. All light comes from Him. At the beginning of time, He created the light to dispel the darkness and chaos that was all over (Genesis 1:1–5). Then He created the lights in the sky, the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:14–16). As light itself and the source of light, He had only to speak and light came into being.

The New Testament picks up these themes, describing the holiness of God as Light in different ways. God "dwells in unapproachable light" (1 Timothy 6:16); He is the "Father of lights" (James 1:17). God's Light is revealed in Christ, whose light of love shines into lives darkened by sin (1 John 1:5–7). Jesus declares that He is the "light of the world" (John 8:12; 9:5). John describes Jesus, the incarnate Word, as coming into the world to be the "light of men" and "the true light which gives light to everyone" (John 1:1–9).

And so my thoughts about that infinitesimal mote are that it must have been so radiant that it would be impossible to even look at or get close to. So much energy packed into it that part of it transmuted into a universe, and a good portion of it still remained intact.

"Kabooom" so it happened in Hiroshima on the morning of 6th August 1945, and the world was never the same and "Flaaash" so it happened at some indefinite time in eternity, and the world was born. Georges Lemaitre, him of the Big Bang Theory, did indeed postulate that jumping into existence in a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, out of nothingness in an unimaginably intense flash of light, is how he would expect the universe to respond if God were to actually utter the command in Genesis 1:3, "Let there be light." In other words, the origin of the universe as per outlined in the theory unfolded exactly how one would expect after reading Genesis. But I do not want us to get to "let there be light" at least not yet, for now let's just settle at Gen 1:1 "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

And we now find ourselves at T= 0, Time equals zero - the very beginning – so time started to tick away and this is right where major differences in the schools of thought start to arise. For those that are of the singularity T= 0 was 13.7 billion years ago, but to them that see the hand of God in it, T=0 was approximately six thousand years ago. So which one is it really? 6K or 13.7B, let's find out!

They say the universe is 13.7 billion years old, how did they date it? And does life need be that old too or at what point did life make its entrance? Was it a grand spontaneous entrance or was it a slow progression over millions of years?  And did it happen only on earth? Is it true that early man could live for up to 900 years? Let's read more….