t f p g+ YouTube icon

Surprised by Snow Globes

Bookmark and Share

August 13, 2014 Tags: Biblical Interpretation, Creation & Origins, Earth, Universe & Time, Science as Christian Calling

Today's entry was written by Daniel K. Brannan. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.

Surprised by Snow Globes

I’ve been obsessed with snow globes lately. Snow globes often symbolize childhood innocence or "happy days." The yearning for those days is often tragic as in the 1941 film Citizen Kane where Charles Foster Kane, lying in bed while holding a snow globe, utters “Rosebud," the name of his childhood sled and the only time he had been truly happy. The globe then slips from his dying hand and smashes into all its scattered contents representing Kane’s otherwise sad but rich life. In Libba Bray's book Going Bovine, snow globes are used as metaphors for the constraints of reality and life as we know it. In the end, the key characters smash them in a heroic effort to "free the snow globes." Smashing snow globes seems to be a liberating and revealing, even if sad and unsettling, experience.

Ever since the curate, Susanna Brosseau, gave the homily for the fourth Sunday in Lent at Heavenly Rest Episcopal Church in Abilene, TX I’ve turned over and over in my mind her metaphor of the Genesis stories as little snow globes – Adam & Eve in the Garden, Cain & Abel, Noah, and the Tower of Babel.

I wished I had heard such homiletics as a child in the 1950’s and 1960’s instead of what I routinely heard in the Church of Christ of that time (a fellowship within the Stone-Campbell Restoration tradition).[1] In the past, members of the fellowship preferred natural theology or concordist approaches.[2] These positions were often coupled with “plain sense” fundamentalism . . . at least in my small-town New Mexico church. My grandmother’s upbringing in old-time Seventh Day Adventism reinforced the perceived need to see the first eleven chapters of Genesis as scientific and historical text. Flood geology by George McCready Price in the early 1920’s and Henry Morris in the 1960’s seemed to grant scientific imprimatur to the young earth views held by our local elders and preachers. Never mind that many of the other churches in our fellowship rejected such thinking.[3]

But what I heard on Sundays did not seem to fit with what I experienced of the world the rest of the week. Growing up in New Mexico in the cottonwood bosque of the Rio Grande valley provided everything for a kid to become a biologist. I roamed along the river, cooked over cottonwood fires, ate wild asparagus, watched clouds form thunderheads over the distant peaks of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. There I could listen to the lazy buzz of bees around spicy purple sage, watch horned lizards lapping up red ants, smell the fresh earth as rain quenched the alkali soil and learn to trust senses of smell, sight, touch and hearing – to never trust imaginings or emotions. Camping alone taught me that imaginings are a result of wild emotions. Demons in the night could easily be dismissed with your flashlight or a rifle shot. Emotions could be controlled; reason made wild imaginings disappear. Trusting the senses, and reason, made the world less fearful.

But by banishing demons, it seemed I no longer had need for angels. As in Carl Sagan’s book, The Demon-haunted World, rationality and skepticism truly was my candle that led me out of the darkness and fuzzy thinking of my childhood upbringing. Even my grandmother, upon seeing the cliff face at the Carnegie Quarry in Dinosaur National Monument, Colorado, exclaimed “Maybe I need to rethink this whole Noah’s flood thing.” Hearing her say that when I was an impressionable kid of ten freed me somewhat from my church’s local views.

College science classes furthered that conviction. The professors at university represented Christianity the same way my elders and preachers had – literalism requiring a young earth. They then claimed that such religious views were clearly wrong as shown by the data. I found myself needing to reject my religious upbringing entirely. Fortunately there was one significant philosophy mentor who pointed out that logic, skepticism and rationality – those things I'd come to trust – were themselves not detectable by my senses. And yet they caused those “AHA... this is IT” moments. Logic, skepticism and rationality somehow provided contentment and excitement; and yet they were also feelings undetectable by the senses. What was going on in the brain to provide that pleasure?

It wasn’t too long after that I had an English professor who taught me the power of metaphor as containing far more truth about the human experience than mere data gathered from history and science. The story, the myth, was more important than the actual accounting of what happened. She taught this concept in the context of world drama and plays; she was one of the most demanding and brilliant professors I had ever experienced. I never denigrated stories as “just” metaphors or “just” myths again.

So when the curate began speaking of the Genesis stories – Adam & Eve in the Garden, Cain & Abel, Noah, and the Tower of Babel – as metaphors in the context of little snow globes, I knew she was on to something powerful. If only I had heard such things as a child, I would not have had to think I must choose between science and religion. Snow globes are a perfect way to explain the power of metaphor and myth to a child.

Diagram: “The Ancient Hebrew Conception of the Universe”

The first Creation story (Genesis 1) results in a Hebrew cosmology (the truly literal view in Hebrew) that looks awfully like a little snow globe complete with the sky as a domed firmament set on foundations of heaven much like what is depicted in The Truman Show complete with clouds, sun, moon and stars moving just inside. Above the firmament were the waters that flowed down when the doors of heaven were opened upon Noah. Beyond that, through the gate of heaven one might reach God in the heaven of heavens if only a tower could be built tall enough.

Under the earth was Sheol where the dead dwelled and below that were the foundations of the earth and the storehouses and fountains of the great deep ready to contribute to the flood waters of Noah. One can imagine tipping the little globe and having it fill up with liquid only to see it settle down to reveal, once more, a restored earth.

The innocence and simplicity of “snow globe Christianity” – understanding these bible stories from our childhood as literal, historical, scientific depictions of “things as they really are” – is quite attractive. We can have all our childhood stories of God neatly packaged and on a shelf ready to be pulled down and admired whenever we need reassurance and comfort that all is right with the world as God has made it.

The curate went on to describe how her experience in seminary began knocking each little snow globe off her preconceived shelves of God’s divine action in the world. The actual Hebrew used, blended with a correct understanding of genre and placement in the historical critical methods of textual study, sprinkled with a proper understanding of the philosophical and theological landscape extant when the stories were written, and finally adding a generous helping of enlightenment science tipped each little snow globe off onto the floor with a crash. Her shattered stories were gone forever. All that was left were bits and pieces that just had to be recovered.

But as anyone knows who has had one of their little snow globes shattered, there is no restoration possible. A figure or two inside might be recovered but the original character of the globe is gone forever. The only thing left to do is to try and recover the actual and eternal truth of the stories without the need of historical or scientific validation. These are times for discovering the deeper meaning of the stories and the message intended to the audience of the day. Following that, we have to discern how the story applies to us now.

The result is not as romantic and sweet and cute as the original snow globe. We have lost our childhood views and had to wrestle with the reality of the world as it is. We no longer find neat little packaged worlds that we can examine up close without becoming entangled in them. We are forced into a world where it takes all our efforts to fully understand and respond to the true message of these childhood stories.

The response requires us to get involved and realize that we must take care of the garden and protect each other from harm, to actively protect its creatures; but we have to do all this without the hubris of thinking we can do so by challenging the Creator with our own technology and achievements.

May God give us the grace to care for the garden in ways that will glorify the One through whom, for whom and by whom it was made: the Son, the Word… the Logos.


  1. See Douglas A. Foster, The encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell movement: Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Churches of Christ, Grand Rapids, MI: W.B., Eerdmans Publishing, 2004. Also see: Leroy Garrett, The Stone-Campbell Movement, Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing, 1987; C. Leonard Allen and Richard T. Hughes, Discovering our Roots: The ancestry of Churches of Christ, Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1988. [return to body text]
  2. Ashby L. Camp, The Myth of Natural Origins: How Science Points to Divine Creation, Tempe, AZ: Ktisis Publishing, 1994.
    Robert S. Camp, ed., A Critical Look at Evolution, Atlanta, GA: Religion, Science, and Communication Research and Development Corporation, 1972.
    Donald England, A Christian View of Origins, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1972.
    Calvin Fields, Things You Never Heard, Strong and Compelling Evidence Concerning: The Bible, Creation, Christ, Evolution, Phoenix, AZ: ACW Press, 2001.
    Jack Wood Sears, Conflict and Harmony in Science and the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1969.
    Elton Stubblefield, Creation, Evolution and the Great Flood, Ft. Worth TX: Star Bible Publications, 1995.
    J.D. Thomas, ed., Evolution and Faith, Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1988. Bert Thompson, Theistic Evolution, Shreveport, LA: Lambert Book House, Inc., 1977.
    These books are authored by Church of Christ members; many of them are committed to Biblical literalism and young earth creationism. [return to body text]
  3. For the way Churches of Christ rectify science and the Bible today, refer to: Brannan, D.K., 2011. “The Two Books Metaphor and Churches of Christ.” Review of Reconciling the Bible and Science: A Primer on the Two Books of God, Lynn Mitchell and Kirk Blackard. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63(3): 193-203. [return to body text]

Dan Brannan (BS 1975, Phi Beta Kappa UNM) earned the M.S. in microbiology (1977) at The Ohio State University and Ph.D. in biology (1981) at the University of New Mexico. He worked as a research scientist at Procter & Gamble Company before becoming a professor at Abilene Christian University in 1988. He has since studied science/theology interactions at Calvin College with Phil Clayton (summer, 2001) and at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University with Ernan McMullin as mentor (summers, 2003-2005), the Faraday course at Cambridge, and many Ian Ramsey conferences and presentations at Oxford.


View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Loading...
Page 1 of 1   1
g kc - #86191

August 13th 2014

Daniel,

Metaphorical snow globes are always bound to be shattered by reality. And bubbles are fun for kids, but they don’t make for sane living accommodations.

Scientists and others may also see the theories of Darwinian evolution, neo-Darwinian evolution, and cosmological evolution as snow globes that have fallen off the shelf and shattered. For an example of the latter, see the nearby “Lessons From Dark Matter – Searching For Something That Ought To Be” and comments, particularly Eddie’s #86190.

 

“But by banishing demons, it seemed I no longer had need for angels.”

I’ve had my demons, but I’m glad I still believe in angels. (Mat 4:11; Mat 18:10)


Merv - #86194

August 13th 2014

The whole notion of us being able to intellectually “banish demons” that took considerable authority to exorcise in Jesus’ time (and only by Jesus himself in at least one recorded case) is quite a strange mix of ideas ... more of a play on words, really, unless the user is only referring to those things in a broader context that includes emotions or troubling moods.

I think the snow globe analogy takes on a new challenge if we see our present science-oriented outlooks as being a large snow-globe all of its own.  Not as a put-down for theories of which we don’t approve as g kc may be using it above, but as a realization that we will never be “on the outside” of absolutely everything looking in.  Thinking you are the only one or group that can evaluate or crush everybody else’s globes is a pretention uniquely afflicting the contemporary scientific imagination.


PNG - #86200

August 14th 2014

Merv, I don’t see why the pretention referred to in your last sentence is unique to scientists. Everyone who has a system that they are really, really sure of puts themself in that position, to smash everyone else’s systems. At least science, when it is functioning properly, is tied to what has been observed and can in principle be observed again. 


Merv - #86201

August 14th 2014

You are probably right that it isn’t [unique to scientists].  I was just thinking that scientists usually latch onto that pretention with the most confidence—indeed most of the time unconsiously so that they are in its thoroughly metaphysical grip rather than vice versa. 

I think your last sentence may provide good insight as to why scientists are more vulnerable to that particular conceit than most other groups.  I say this knowing full-well that I do not escape that conceit myself even though I am not a professional scientist—it is a sufficient to most of us that we have been inculturated by it so that we don’t entirely escape its philosophical pathologies.


Tony - #86205

August 15th 2014

Merv…

“The whole notion of us being able to intellectually “banish demons” that took considerable authority to exorcise in Jesus’ time (and only by Jesus himself in at least one recorded case) is quite a strange mix of ideas…more of a play on words, really, unless the user is only referring to those things in a broader context that includes emotions or troubling moods.”

Aren’t overwhelmingly troublesome emotions and moods what psychoses are?—“Psychoses; any severe form of mental disturbance which produces deep and far reaching disruption of normal behavior and social functioning.”  In Jesus’ time, as the present, severe cases of psychoses involve “considerable authority” to exorcise—“to free (a person, place, etc.) of evil spirits or malignant influences.”  In this context, when considering “evil spirits or malignant influences,” one should instead focus on the [intentional idolization and internalization of the psychopathic personality] which persuades the individual in making all the wrong decisions in life.  Here, personality disorders, bipolar disorder, manic depression, schizophrenia, and psychopathy find their home.  The psychopath cannot be exorcised from the psychopath because he/she [is] the psychopath—you cannot exorcise the devil from the devil because he/she is the devil.  Conversely, others with a sense of morality can find their way back to sanity.  The more severe cases require significantly more intense treatment with “considerable authority.”

The statement, “The whole notion of us being able to intellectually ‘banish demons’” comes full circle to whether, as children, we were taught to show “remorse and mercy.”  The events in life that we have played a role in and experienced since birth have been recorded in memory—the conscious-self understands this.  Where we have fallen short and missed the mark we either “forgive” or “condemn” ourselves according to how we have been raised to show “remorse” and “mercy.”  The sermon on the mount (Matthew 5) is the perfect example of how parents ought to bring up their children.  Those who can show “remorse” and “mercy” have their parents to thank, alternatively, those who cannot, have their parents to blame.

Merv, I have a question for you concerning your comment, “Thinking you are the only one or group that can evaluate or crush everybody else’s globes is a pretension uniquely afflicting the contemporary scientific imagination.”  I find this comment extremely strange coming from a Christian, in that Christ, his Saints, and their followers firmly believe they are the only ones that can evaluate or crush everybody else’s globes—everyone who can learn to be morally upright is of course invited in their globe.

Would such an opinion be directed toward Jesus Christ, his Saints, and their followers if it were to be proven scientifically through what has been repeatedly observed and recorded by the justice systems of the civilized world and the sciences of psychology, sociology, and criminology?  If you are humble enough to admit that you may be wrong in your worldview, here is a lecture you may find interesting.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVpLnB4VyEk

Best Regards


Merv - #86212

August 16th 2014

Tony, I have trouble following when you say “when considering ‘evil spirits or malignant influences,’ one should instead focus on the [intentional idolization and internalization of the psychopathic personality] which persuades the individual in making all the wrong decisions in life. “

Are you suggesting that all demons are nothing more than psychoses?  I’m just wanting to clarify on what is ordinarily a play on words today then we remark that someone has been ‘wrestling with their personal demons’.  We probably aren’t talking about Beelzebub or any other entities for which historically someone may have needed to be delivered with exorcism. 

Regarding your question on my comment about thinking we are the only objective ones; it is true that Christians believe they have received a truth that is universal and needed by everyone.  I don’t think that is going as far as thinking that my grasp on these truths and all their associated details makes me personally the “window of objectivity”.  I point towards another outside myself [God as revealed in Christ] who I believe is our rock and ground for being and thinking.  But in making such a universal claim I’m not doing anything strange—many, especially scientists, also think in terms of universal truths and hotly defend them, in fact.  The difference [I suggest] is our own self-evaluation as to whether we think we ‘have arrived’ at a complete truth in our own understanding.  Most thinkers are willing to acknowledge doubts or room to possibly be wrong even if think they are not.  Scientists advertise that they are always this way and use it as a selling point for science generally.  But they pass off such a philosophical endorsement as being itself scientific when in fact it is not.  And they cling to it with an ardour that does the most devout religionists proud. 

So I do recognize [in some limited way from the inside] a ‘snow globe’ encapsulation that my own views certainly have even though I hope they point somewhat accurately towards that which is eternally enduring [God] quite outside my own limitations.


Tony - #86214

August 17th 2014

Merv…

In the present post Daniel comments, “by banishing demons, it seemed I no longer had need for angels.  As in Carl Sagan’s book, The Demon-haunted World, rationality and skepticism truly was my candle that led me out of the darkness and fuzzy thinking of my childhood upbringing.”

By “banishing demons” and no longer having a “need for angels” I believe Daniel is stating that at some point in his life, through the light of “rationality and skepticism,” he grew out of “childhood beliefs” which led him out of the “darkness and fuzzy thinking” that so many are deceived by today.  The way [I’m] reading your initial comment to Daniel is that you support this “darkness and fuzzy thinking” and find it troublesome that someone (Daniel) or a group (science) can “evaluate or crush everybody else’s globes.”  I sense this is a distressful situation for you—that “someone or a group” can be “on the outside” of absolutely everything looking in.”  However, your statement, in itself, is a contradiction according to the laws of antinomy.  Just as the statement, “‘There is no absolute truth’ can be considered an antinomy because this statement is suggesting in itself to be an absolute truth, and therefore denies itself any truth in its statement.”

I do not see the strive for truth as a conceit, and neither is this a philosophical pathology.  As PNG correctly states, “At least science, when it is functioning properly, is tied to what has been observed and can in principle be observed again.”  This is precisely my point where I comment, “Would such an opinion—‘Thinking you are the only one or group that can evaluate or crush everybody else’s globes is a pretention uniquely afflicting the contemporary scientific imagination.”—be directed toward Jesus Christ, his Saints, and their followers, if it were to be proven scientifically, through what has been repeatedly observed and recorded by the justice systems of the civilized world and the sciences of psychology, sociology, and criminology?”

Therefore, yes, I am suggesting that all “demons” are nothing more than psychoses.  The play on words today when we remark that someone has been “wrestling with their personal demons,” is nothing more than that—mental disturbance.”  What remains to be understood is that there are different levels of severity with psychoses, and mental illness all together.  Hence, no, we aren’t talking about “Beelzebub” or any other “entities,” nor are we talking about “exorcism”—this is an elaborate fabricated sham!  Thus, my comment, “when considering ‘evil spirits or malignant influences,’ one should instead focus on the [intentional idolization and internalization of the psychopathic personality] which persuades the individual in making all the wrong decisions in life,” implies the contemplated and willingness to assimilate the psychopathic personality because of the belief that some benefit will be gained, i.e., stature, status, worth.  Ergo, the play on the words—“selling one’s soul to the devil”—a spirit being does not take over the individual.  Rather, the individual intentionally “decides” to be a “certain kind” of person.  The individual can, of course, intentionally decide not to be that kind of person anymore.  However, he/she will then need to “wrestle with his/her demons.”

Christianity is the culmination of ancient mystical, esoteric, and religious perspectives on mankind, society, and God’s divine guidance.  This undertaking is clearly outlined in the Holy Scriptures, with the crown objective being the Kingdom of God.  I understand your position that you don’t consider yourself, personally, as the “window of objectivity” on these truths.”  You indicate that you “point toward another” outside yourself who holds “absolute truth on these matters.”  Well, then, why do you make the statement, “Thinking you are the only one or group that can evaluate or crush everybody else’s globes is a pretention uniquely afflicting the contemporary scientific imagination?”  I believe you have not grasped that “God’s Saints” are here on earth and have prepared the conditions for the “arrival” of Jesus Christ’s second coming.  In my opinion, this is the reason for your cynicism toward the scientific community, although, there are individuals in the scientific community who do exhibit these distinguishing charateristics you specified—conceit, and philosophical pathology.  I also believe you have not grasped that the Holy Spirit has already reincarnated into its host and presented himself to the “four and twenty elders,” and to the “seven lamps of fire” standing before the “throne of God.”

I’ve previously explained elsewhere that, in my interpretation, the “four and twenty elders” are (agencies, organizations, and nations) that together form the alliance of “God’s Kingdom”—Read Revelation Chapter 4 and 5.  This is why since the turn of the millennium (2001) the world has dramatically changed: the event of 9-11 (2001), the consolidation of global enterprises, the merging of world markets, the 2008 financial crisis, the Middle East in chaos—Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, conflict in other areas of Africa, tensions in the South China Sea—and now, civil war in Ukrain, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict erupting once again, and ISIL’s takeover of Iraq.  I believe this is why you made that statement—because you do not understand that God’s Kingdom is taking control of planet earth.  The comment I made on your statement being strange, coming from a Christian, had to do with acknowledging this fact—that “Christ and his Saints” hold the “universal snow-globe in their hands and are on the outside of everything looking in.”  Surprisingly, to everyone concerned, they are on planet earth able to project themselves in the astral (heaven) outside of everything!  Accordingly, if a Christian were to confront “Jesus and his Saints” stating, “Ay, Jesus, you think you and your group can evaluate or crush everybody else’s globes.  This is a pretention that is uniquely afflicting your contemporary scientific imagination!” it would be extremely strange, if not outright presumptuous—no rancorous intentions implied.

Best Regards

 


Merv - #86222

August 19th 2014

Hi, Tony.  Sorry if I left a misimpression somewhere of being distressed about anything.  I don’t think I am.  I just find it surprising that any Christian [and I forget for the moment what point of view you harken from—so I won’t assume anything] would subscribe to what seems to me to be the bald faced assertion that “all demons are nothing more than psychoses.”  That doesn’t disturb me or entail any fuzzy thinking I hope.  I just disagree with the universality of the claim.  I am willing (and do) entertain the notion that some (maybe even many!) of the stories about demons could be “merely” those things as you describe them today.  But to say that all of them are that (i.e. no such things as Beelzebub or Satan) flies in the face of what Jesus teaches.  I could be wrong; it wouldn’t be the first time.  But I’m not losing any sleep over it.

Sorry that my replies are shorter and fewer with school starting up here.  Thanks for the discussion.


Tony - #86246

August 22nd 2014

Hi Merv…

First and foremost, for the record, I want to say that I will not attack, criticise, or insult anyone personally.  The primary incentive that drives me is establishing truth, if anything, it is misleading false teaching that I criticise.  I have not said that you are personally and intentionally misrepresenting the truth but only that through your beliefs you are supporting “the dark and fuzzy thinking” that misrepresents the truth.  Now, it can be that you are personally and intentionally misrepresenting the truth, however, this is not what I have claimed.  You might comment, “why would anyone join a blog site, such as BioLogos, and misrepresent the truth?”  I would state, “because certain naive individuals, most probably, would think they can prevent, or at least postpone, the rapture and second coming of Christ.  This is where Beelzebub (Satan), the chief devil (psychopath), and his hoard of fellow servants play their part in misrepresenting and misleading the truth to the human race.  Remember rule number one, “things are not always as they seem.”  Hence, my “bald faced assertion” that “all demons are nothing more than psychoses.”  This understanding stems from first-hand knowledge of the in-depth examination of the human personality and human behavior specifically.  With a little common sense, rationality, and logic, in other words, “critical thinking”—“When we are thinking critically we claim or assume something.  The claim and the thinking, upon which it is based, are subject to rational evaluation.  When we do the evaluation we are thinking critically.” 

You stated, “I just disagree with the universality of the claim.  I am willing (and do) entertain the notion that some (maybe even many!) of the stories about demons could be “merely” those things oa you describe them today.  But to say that all of them are that (i.e., no such things as Beelzebub or Satan) flies in the face of what Jesus teaches.”  Why not just go one step further and consider that “all of them are just that,” psychoses.  In this way, Beelzebub (Satan) becomes someone sitting on a particular throne, here on earth—the puppet master who dictates and controles his marionettes who are his minions—Revelation 17:18 states, “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.”  Everything becomes clearer when viewed from this perspective.

Here, you comment, “to say that all of them are that (i.e., no such things as Beelzebub or Satan) flies in the face of what Jesus teaches.  I could be wrong; it wouldn’t be the first time.  But I’m not losing any sleep over it.”  To fly in the face of what Jesus teaches implies that this [is] what jesus teaches.  Don’t forget that the religious leaders (Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees) and latter the (Catholic Church), had [full control] of what was written in the scriptures.  It’s not a far-fetched idea to consider that the scriptures have been “doctored.”  As a matter of fact this is precisely what Revelation 18:23 contends, “for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.”

Accordingly, this is the basis for my “bald-faced assertion” and wouldn’t want you to lose any sleep over this either.  I wish you well in your return to your educational career and also thank you for the discussion.  I leave you with the subject matter of this documentary to consider.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pROu77TvZzA 

Best Regards

 


Jon Garvey - #86202

August 14th 2014

If I may be so bold - the Genesiscosmology only looks like a snow globe because it’s been reconstructed to look that way by modern people who can only think in terms of material structures. I contest that no Hebrew ever thought of the universe like the illustration.

Indeed my blog post today argues for a different idea of what Genesis represents which, IMHO, puts the snow boot on a different foot.


Merv - #86203

August 14th 2014

...and I for one gleaned new insight from your thoughts on that blog, Jon, though I haven’t taken the time yet to respond over there.  But I will at least affirm for others here that it is worth pursuing your link.  Thanks.


Page 1 of 1   1