On Hearty Copper and The Psalmist’s Stone or Biblical Metallurgy

I always have had a discreet paranoia there might be a mistranslation somewhere in the Bible I unaware of which would directly affect the core of faith. Though I haven’t analyzed the whole Bible comprehensively, I have yet to find any examples profound enough to accomplish this which encourages a greater faith in those central creeds. The greatest issue I encounter with translation and word study come not from the necessary elements, but arise most often from attempts made to identify specific materials, objects, places, or animals. This is the case with Psalm 18:34, which has been rendered to refer to steel, bronze, or copper, depending on translation or commentary.

Psalm 18:34, “He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken in mine arms.”

KJV

The translation of “steel” perks up the ears of the excited critic and gives them a foundation on which to argue against the Bible’s claim as a historically reliable document. Yet, study will show steel has long been eliminated as a possible translation of the Hebrew nechushah and is more properly translated “copper” or “bronze.” Reputable sources like Brown-Driver-Briggs are among those who exclude steel as a possibility completely.

Psalm 18:34, “He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze [or ‘copper’; Hb. nechushah].”

I go a step further than some and suggest it leans more toward “copper.” Lest we think this too can be an anachronism, it is well within, or even post the Bronze Age date when composite bows were first said to appear, being approximately 1900 BC. We can use other verses to make this case, for as steel is an alloy of iron and carbon, a verse in Job makes it, at very least, unlikely nechushah would be used for steel or bronze as the verse implies it comes straight from rock.

Job 28:2, “Iron [Hb. peladah] is taken from the earth, and copper [Hb. nechushah] is smelted from stone [Hb. eben also ‘ore’].”

The book of Job is an interesting one because there is no clear agreement when it was written. In some regards it seems to be very ancient, and in others relatively recent. There are three main schools of thought:

1: Job was written after the flood but before Moses, between 2350 BC and 1750 BC .

2: Job was written after Joseph but before Moses, between 1650 BC and 1500 BC.

3: Job lived during Moses’ lifetime, between 1400 BC and 1300 BC.

If consensus means anything, most scholars agree with the first citing contents of the book which point to a very early period, like lifespan. However, if we accept this, Job can present some possible problems regarding the utilization of iron which would date it, at first glance, around the late second, or third possibility, but before we get discouraged, as the Encyclopedia Britannica points out, the origins of smelted iron ore are obscured by history. Yet, through this obscurity some evidence does exist, of such a process existing as early as 2500 BC.

“The earliest history of smelted iron is obscure, with the first scanty evidence of man-made iron dating from about 2500 bce in the Middle East. A thousand years later the abundance of ores led to the displacement of copper and bronze by iron in the Hittite empire.”

Encyclopedia Britannica, “Hand Tool,” https://www.britannica.com/technology/hand-tool/Iron-and-steel-tools

Both iron and copper are natural elements which need smelted, but aren’t alloys in themselves, while steel is. Bronze too is an alloy made of copper and tin. As it comes to iron, a variety of minerals can be added to further develop the steel alloy. Steel is created by adding carbon to iron, or in the case of stainless steel, chromite to iron. Given steel is created from iron, how much does it fits for Job 28:2 to read something like, “Iron is taken from the earth, and steel [an iron alloy] is smelted from stone”? Even if eben is translated “ore,” we need to suppose the verse says, “Iron is taken from the earth, and steel is smelted from the iron ore.” Though we may make it work by adding a couple words, and making a linguistic alloy in a sense, the copper translation more smoothly adheres to the mineral being smelted out of the stone itself, referring to its organic purity, while steel does not. Steel can reasonably be ruled out, both on the translational end and the historical.

The book of the minor prophet Nahum, in his prophesy regarding the destruction of Nineveh, is sometimes also said to refer to steel.

Nahum 2:3, “The shield of his mighty ones has become red, the mighty men are clothed in scarlet, the chariots will flame like iron [Hb. peladah] torches [or ‘flash with steel’] in the day of preparation, and the cypresses are made to quiver [or ‘the spears are brandished’].”

Nineveh sacked by the Medes, 612 BC, Mary Evans Picture Library

The word in Nahum 2:3 sometimes rendered “steel” is not nechushah but peladah, which some render as “iron,” but the Hebrew word for iron is barzel. Why Nahum would switch up the word, the only occurrence of peladah, to mean iron instead of using the usual brazel is not explained (though some say it refers to a specific part of a chariot). If we split up the word into two parts, say a suffix and a prefix, while assuming such a thing can be done with Hebrew (I cannot say for certain it can), pela means “extraordinary,” and dah (a plural of this, or “these” as “together,” or “one another” respectively), we arrive at a conjoined term meaning something like an “awesome” or “extraordinary multitude.” Since the word prior (Hb. esh) is rendered literally “flame” or “flaming,” and is figuratively read to refer to “anger”, especially God’s anger, it is interesting to theorize or imagine the verse as saying, “The chariots shall be an angry and awesome multitude in the day of his preparation, and the fir trees shall be terribly shaken.” “Fir trees” too is a questionable rendering of Nahum 2:3 and is often regarded as referring to wooden spears of cypress or juniper. Yet, if my speculative food for thought has validity, the shaking of the cypress, or fir trees, makes poetic sense given the amount of thundering chariots, and, with such a translation, the following verse also fits within the overall context.

Nahum 2:4, “The chariots run madly in the streets; they shall rush to and fro in the plazas. Their appearance is like torches; they dart about like the [lightning].”

The last word translated “lightning” I have kept identical to the LITV (literal) translation only excepting the plurality of lightnings. “Their appearance is like torches” likely means “ like flame” as the Leviathan is said to breath torches in the book of Job (v. 41:19).

Job 41:19, “Out of [the Leviathan’s] mouth go burning torches; sparks fly out.”

Clearly, the Bible is using a simile saying it is like torches, or rather, like flame. Thus, one need examine the attributes of fire and flame to understand the Bible’s meaning. Fire is destructive, prone to raging out of control (The KJV translates Nahum 2:4, “The chariots shall rage in the streets”), and is ultimately terrifying. While some people fight fires, others flee when it moves from a simple spark, to a lone flame, and then to an inferno. Assuming the proper fuel, fire will eventually reach this zenith, and if not extinguished, will destroy everything in its path.

I always caution using anachronistic arguments, both as an apologetic tool and a criticism because we are always learning the ancients were more advanced then we prior thought possible. Some archaeologists believe steel could have been being made, albeit on a small level, as early as 1800 BC and, if so, would set origins of steel production at just after the book of Genesis concluded. Could it be argued there is nothing wrong with the “steel” translation then? One could try to use this explanation I suppose, but I don’t consider it a tenable explanation. I am sure steel produced on a mass scale in this era would be vigorously disputed, for depending who you ask the dates and origins of steel are extremely and surprisingly varied. A quick Google search revealed differing conclusions, from the early 1800 BC date to the 3rd, 13th, or even 16th century! The wild disparity likely arises from different views on the extent of metallurgy in its sustainability as a profitable industry and the uses of the resulting product. For example, a mere speck of steel being created might not warrant the term “origin” in the mind of some students or professions of history, while others it may reflect accuracy. For many it may be more appropriate to place the origin when items began being made which employed its use. As far as I am concerned, all I know is the 16th century seems a little late to place the origins of steel.

This doesn’t answer everything. I certainly can’t vouch for the durability or practicality in using a bronze, brass, or copper composite bow, or even if the Psalm is meant to be literal or figurative (even today one said to be able to “bend steel” signifies someone’s great strength rather than their real ability to do it). In spite of all wandering speculation, I think we can safely reach the conclusion the mistranslated biblical references to steel likely refer to copper, though I cannot discount its loose application to a copper alloy or bronze, which may yield greater strength. Yet, for our intents and purposes, and the verses we have discussed, the copper translation makes the most sense.

Galatians 3:19-20, “On Mediators and Purpose of Law”

Galatians 3:19-20, “What then was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise had referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. ²⁰A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.”

When we read or review the old and new covenants, we find that each covenant is represented by a figurehead or authority. In the case of the Old Testament, we find this figure to be Moses, while in the new, it is Christ. An remarkable aspect of compairison between Christ and Moses, is that when we look at the life of Moses, we find his life contained many things which are represented and corollary to the life our Lord and savior led, when He became subservient to physicality. Thus, we can conclude that the life of Moses, was a representational prophecy concerning the promise God had made prior to Abraham. It is fitting that the old and new covenants would have such striking parallels among the lives of both their authoritative figures. Here is a brief list of just some of the parallels between Jesus and Moses:

Moses: The Pharaoh decreed all male Hebrew babies be killed.
Jesus: Herod decreed all male Hebrew babies be killed.

Both were hidden in Egypt so that their lives would be spared. In addition, both Jesus and Moses, were in exile until the death of those rulers that had ordered the death of Hebrew male children.

Moses: Born when the Egyptians, a Gentile culture, ruled over the Israelites.
Jesus: Born when the Romans, a Gentile culture, ruled over the Israelites.

Moses: Raised by a man who was not his real father.
Jesus: Raised by a man who was not his real father, for His real father was God.

Moses: Freed his people from slavery.
Jesus: Freed us of the slavery of sin.

Christ and Moses were both mediators between man and God the Father. Moses became, more or less, the mouthpiece for God to make known the Law unto man. Why was the law brought to man through Moses in the first place, given that the gospel had already been revealed to Abraham? Paul tells us that it was due to the vileness of man and our disobedience. Our perverse nature and tendency to revolt and rebel against God, brought Him much grief. God’s grief, sadness, and anger are frequent messages of the prophets, like, notably, the minor prophet Hosea, whose life became representational of how God views our relationship with Him. The law was made to show man what he is, and what he should be. By the law, man saw that the pride they had in themselves was undeserved, for the law represented a precipice that man was and is unable to scale.

The law was not made to cancel out any hope, for the hope we have in Christ wouldn’t exist hadn’t it been for the law. Hope, within the confines of the human mind, rests in a future tense, that those things that are the desires of our heart may come to pass eventually as time slips further and further behind us. We see by the law, that because all have sinned, we can only direct our hope to one place, as Abraham did, and that is in God’s promises. It was a promise to Abraham that through his bloodline, a savior would come and be the object of hope for all nations. We can’t hope on the law, for though it is good, no hope is revealed in it, only condemnation. God, by his grace, gave us something to hope in, something that far exceeds the hope directed at physical things. This hope is eternal and true, rather than the antithesis of the world, where it is momentary and may, or may not, occur.

So, though the law provided no hope, it prepared the way for the hope and faith we have in Jesus Christ our Lord and salvation. We understand our need for salvation due to the law, and if there was no law, we wouldn’t understand to the degree we do, that we need to be saved. The laws intention was to refocus man on God, and illuminate the promises He made to and through Abraham as well as the prophets. Thus, we now place our hope on Christ who, reveals and offers this hope to us, and as God’s promises to Abraham proved true, likewise will Christ’s promises to us.

The mediators Jesus Christ, and Moses, showed the world where it is and where it can be in the eyes of God. As Moses was a mediator between God and the Israelites, he was also of the Israelites. In the same way, Christ was a mediator between man and God, but was of God. Christ, the mediator, presents us to the Father and it is by our faith in Him that all are saved. He is the embodiment of the law, hope, faith, obedience, and God Himself.

2 Corinthians 12:7, “On Not Letting The Gifts Glorify The Self”

“To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.” -2 Corinthians 12:7

"The Conversion of Saul," by Gustave Dore. engraving, c. 1865

Let us not compare our Christian walk or spiritual gifts with anyone else in the Body of Christ. Romans 12:6-8 makes it abundantly clear that we differ in gifts and those godly manifestations expressed in the body. These are from God and are granted to us by His grace. This is important to realize, for even these blessed gifts by the Lord can be used by our sinful nature to feed our pride.

The enemy loves to turn our work for the Lord into something sinful. It’s not to say the work of the Lord in and of itself is sinful, of course not, but rather that we ourselves may sin in our efforts to be in complete obedience with our Lord. We may have the gift of prophecy and we may serve, teach, encourage, give, lead, or show mercy. Yet, a hidden danger might lie in wait, for instead of acknowledging the source, we may use these gifts to feed our pride. This verse suggests that Paul himself was tempted with this as he followed obediently to complete God’s great works.

"Apostle Paul," by Rembrandt. oil on canvas, c. 1657

Yet, God in His wisdom knew that this would hinder the great work He was doing through and with Paul. This partnership would have been spoiled if the apostle would have become conceited. So, there was given to Paul a thorn in his flesh, “a messenger of Satan,” to torment him. What this “thorn” actually was has been debated for some time. These range from a physical malformation or defect of some sort, to a sin that tormented Paul. Regardless of what it was, we know that this “thorn” kept Paul grounded with the Lord, and he eventually found that “thorn” to be a blessing, for without it Christ’s power wouldn’t be able to “rest on him” to the degree it did.

Outside Christ, who was perfect, even the most amazing men of God in the scriptures had grievous faults, which should give us some hope. It certainly does me. Moses for example was a murderer, had anger issues, was a stutterer, and was disobedient to the Lord. Though Moses was disciplined for this by not being able to enter the promised land, God used this faulty man to do an amazing work, as He can use us, as faulty as we are, to do great works as well.

"Moses Striking The Egyptian (detail)," Amsterdam Hagadah, c. 1695

When we come to the Lord in faith, He is not beyond bringing hardship, weakness, persecutions, “thorns,” and difficulties in our lives so that we may not loose sight of Him. If we are too prideful in our walk with the Lord and in the gifts He bestows in us, we should not be too shocked when, in His sovereignty, brings about a hardship to “ground” us.

Although I don’t like speaking for God, I do feel comfortable saying that God doesn’t want to encourage sin in your life. So if you haven’t been granted gifts to a fullness yet, perhaps if they were given unto you, the glory would go to the self and not God.

Let us pray for the understanding at only comes from the Spirit, that we may be instructed on how to avoid becoming to proud in our obedience and the gifts God pours into us. Let us pray that we will give credit where it’s due, that is, to the source of the gifts we are presented and indeed all things. Let us forever strive not to pervert that which is Holy or shift the glory of God onto the self. May He be forever praised. Amen.

Romans 12:3, “On The Nature of Pride”

“For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you.” -Romans 12:3

"The Confusion of Tongues," by Gustave Dore. engraving, c. 1865

In my earlier post concerning 2 Corinthians 10:7 entitled, “On Proper Pride and Humility,” I discussed a little about the relative aspects of pride and a few ways one can avoid this particular sin in their life. Yet, I feel some added clarification is required, that we may gain a deeper understanding of this sin, in order that it might be identified. Pride has great ability at concealing itself in ones life, by defining it with more clarity, we may illuminate it.

Pride at its very core is a lie and deceitful. To have pride in oneself, is to take those attributes one has been granted by God and embellish upon them so they become more than they are. As Paul urges, “Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought.” This in essence it what pride is, to think of oneself more highly than you should, or to think about a particular attribute more than you should.

Therefore, if you stand in front of a mirror and suck it in and flex periodically, as I have been known to do, you are exercising that pride. Also, if you are a big, “Rock Band” fan and picture yourself in your minds eye playing in front of a crowd of screaming women, or men, this is also prideful. Do not use your mind and heart to exalt and exaggerate the self, for to do so is incredibly sinful. In addition, because you will fall short in this elaboration, this can lead to extreme depression, when one doesn’t match up to the conception offered up by the sinful mind.

In atheism, a popular argument against God’s being, is that if He existed or exists than He is an extremely prideful being. Yet, when we take Paul’s definition, we find this not to be the case at all. God knows exactly who He is and cannot be anything different. Furthermore, because he is the thing-above-which-no-greater-can-be-thought, as defined perfectly in St. Anselm of Canterbury’s Ontological Argument, He is perfectly worthy of worship. In fact, due to God’s knowledge of exactly what He is, this is humility.

"Sistine Chapel Ceiling (detail)," by Michelangelo. fresco, c. 1508-1512

Paul continues saying, “think of yourself in sober judgment.” This is what humility is when it is in, “accordance with the faith God has distributed.” This being the case then it negates the idea of God being a prideful, and thereby sinful deity. God cannot deceive Himself, for this would present an irreconcilable contradiction, for He would have to imagine Himself greater than He is, which is an impossibility when one applies the definition of God offered by Anselm.

This verse suggests something which may give some insight into what human nature consists of. We are told, again, to think of ourselves in sober judgment in accordance with our faith in Christ. Thereby, since faith plays such a roll in the sober judgement of self, the question arises if we can have any victory against pride away from Christ? I would argue we can’t for the world is based on the self and the flesh. This sin of pride is the very same that drove Adam and Eve from the Garden. In a world where even good actions are self serving and motivated by the self, this doesn’t seem like a complete absurdity.

"Adam and Eve Expelled," by Gustave Dore. engraving, c. 1865

To be in accordance with one’s faith, we need to realize that we are indeed imperfect and sinful. This is how Paul had such a lowly conception of himself without sinning. Paul realized how much of a sinner he was and how unworthy he was to both serve God, and be offered grace through Jesus Christ. Paul was completely humble in that he knew what he was and worked for God to serve all man and almost singlehandedly brought about the New Israel among the Gentiles.

Remember to use discernment and do not elaborately adorn yourself with things like makeup, clothing (but please do wear clothes), jewelry, and anything that you use to magnify your being. This goes for both men and women. Yet, at the same time, we do not need to look like we just crawled out of a gutter whenever we go out in public, but we should use, “sober judgement in accordance with the faith.” Do not attempt to hide the beauty of being that goes beyond mere appearances, but be modest. God has granted you many things and because God is perfect, they are perfect. Do not magnify it by means of worldly things to either please the self or others, for this is a stumbling block to both, and sinful.

Finally, God has distributed the Spirit to all those in the faith. I can’t address every context and every situation, for such wisdom and omniscience belongs to God alone. Pray to the Lord that He may reveal you by the Spirit of Truth, if such sin is present, and to what degree. Pray that He would help and instruct you how to walk that thin line between both pride and envy, that you may see yourself for who you are, a precious child of the Most High.

Proverbs 12:1, “On How to Become Stupid”

“Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but whoever hates correction is stupid.” -Proverbs 12:1

Like it or not, and sometimes we certainly don’t, discipline is an important aspect of life that everyone goes through at one time or another. Whether it be from God, our parents, our boss, friends, or dare I say it, even the law, if we approach discipline with the proper reverence, it can culminate in a blessing rather than a burden. This point is echoed, rather pioneered, elsewhere in the scriptures, when it tells us:

“No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.” -Hebrews 12:11

It is not uncommon for man, in his pride, to look at discipline with bitterness, but Proverbs tells us we are viewing it in the wrong way, especially when the discipline comes from the Lord. We are to humbly accept this discipline, for the discipline of the Lord is perfect, good, done for our own good, and motivated by His love for us (Hebrews 12:5-8). Thus, look to God’s discipline as a means of moving you forward, closer to our Lord, instead of letting it become a hindrance to your walk, which can become manifest due to prideful bitterness. The Lord keeps those who are His and calls upon them. His intention is not to push you away due to discipline. As Hebrews tells us, discipline isn’t exactly pleasant, but its an instrument used by the Lord, in order that we may share in his holiness.

Pride is a major stumbling block to looking at discipline and correction in such ways as the Bible urges. Man, even on an individual level, enjoys feeling that they are perfect and beyond reproach. Thus, when one is corrected in a misconception, then its not to uncommon for the one being corrected to respond in anger, not out of logic, but out of desperation when their pride is pierced. Though remember, there is always the chance you may try to rebuke someone and find out your actually the one needing to be corrected. This happens to me frequently.

When one corrects you, realize that you have an opportunity. An opportunity to gain wisdom and knowledge. These opportunities are indispensable, for if you are in the wrong, realize with a proper reaction, you can be made right, and such knowledge may come to serve you and the Lord in the future.

Do not let your pride negate the correction before you, for to be corrected is a blessing that is beyond measure. Our pride, however, at times lets us not accept the correction, and this can be dangerous considering our personal growth in the Lord. Take your correction with praise and realize that another piece of knowledge or wisdom has entered your repertoire, and for that thanks should be given! If you have trouble accepting correction, realize and identify it, and pray to our Lord that you may develop a heart of humbleness.

If you want to be stupid, then don’t accept any correction and blame your discipline on everyone else. Could you imagine how things would be if nobody accepted any correction? Your mind would be utterly blank and any argumentation posed against you could only be answered with anger and hate. We are not called to these things. Bless those that have corrected you, and praise the Lord that He has sent correction your way. With that I pray you would grow into a man/woman of God, with the wisdom, knowledge, and discernment to be able to lead a multitude to our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

"Jesus Walks on Water," by Ivan Aivazovsky. oil on canvas, c. 1888

Romans 1:27, “On Liberalism and Rebuking The Hate Charge”

“In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” -Romans 1:27

by Kevin Tuma

Paul, in the previous verse, mentions women first as being perpetrators of grotesque sexual sin, presumably with animals, and then tells of men having relations with other men. This emphasizes the lengths of debauchery that was going on in Rome and elsewhere in Paul’s time, and, indeed, it is still with us today.

By use of the term, “likewise,” or, “in the same way” in verse 27, it indicates to us that men lusting after another man is near on par with the woman’s sexual deviance and sin against nature. Due to these sins they reserved in themselves the due penalty for their error as the scripture tells us.

In today’s society there is a push for the church to become more liberal or progressive. Some have, tragically, fallen prey to this and I know of at least one Episcopalian church that features a homosexual minister.

Numerous homosexuals tell us the bible says nothing about their actions being wrong, but in reality that viewpoint is so difficult to provide biblical evidence for that its shocking that idea is so prevalent.

Does this mean homosexuals are void of coming to Christ for repentance and forgiveness? No, they are offered salvation just as everyone, but their attempt to change doctrine has nothing to do with rationality, but rather they want all areas of life to condone and adhere to their lifestyle choices, even if its God. It is especially interesting when one considers the topic of homosexuality, for those who have, through faith, repented of homosexuality are then viciously assaulted in word and action by the homosexual community. This is a common trait in liberalism, that society should bend to accept a persons actions which make them comfortable and anyone who disagrees should be attacked mercilessly. Often in such liberalistic thinking, it is void of any rational contemplation, but rather based on emotion and the desire to alleviate the responsibility behind one’s actions.

I obviously don’t know the philosophical ideals of every Christian or liberal in the world, so my next statement should be taken as a generality. It seems reasonable to conclude that most liberals who demand tolerance, but at the same time conformity by those who disagree with their particular school of thought, indeed would consider themselves atheists. The odd thing about this is that extreme liberalism has such a hold in the world, but yet is made up of relatively few people. In fact, a Gallup poll in 2007 suggested that atheism represented only 4 percent of the American public, which supposedly, according to author Paul Copan, is the exact same percentage when a similar poll was taken in 1944. He states in his book, “Is God a Moral Monster?” –

“Rumors of God’s death have been greatly exaggerated. And when we look at the non-Western world, people are becoming Christians in record numbers. The Christian faith is the fastest-growing movement around, often accompanied by signs and wonders.”

If this is the case, then how do we account for liberalism’s prominence in the world? Perhaps, if Gallup and Copan are correct, it may be that the liberal community has been playing a game of chess for some time, by strategically placing liberal individuals in places like politics, media and universities. It could also mean that Christians have been somewhat silent when it comes to refuting such liberal world views. It seems there is a hesitance about getting on the bad side of the liberal community due to their propensity for anger, public insults, and quarreling. Christians should realize one general truth about those angry liberals, which may play a part in our aversion in debate. Again, Copan says:

“True, they (liberals) effectively utilize a combination of emotion and verbal rhetoric, but they aren’t known for logically carrying thoughts through from beginning to end. Their arguments against God’s existence aren’t intellectually rigorous – although they want to give that impression. Yes, they’ll raise some important questions concerning, for example, the problem of evil, but again, their arguments are a collage of rhetorical barbs that don’t really form a coherent argument. I’ve observed that while these men do have expertise in certain fields (biology and evolutionary theory in the case of Dawkins and Dennett), they turn out to be fairly disappointing when arguing against God’s existence or Christian doctrine.”

Paul Copan

We followers of Christ are called to love even the most detestable, for we know at one time, we lived under sin and the Law, and due to our vile sin, God’s wrath. Thus, we need to remind people that just because we disagree with someone’s actions, that it in no way necessarily leads or equates to hate. If they have this view, which honestly they may have no matter what, it severely hinders our ability to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is something we need to point out, as is commonly said, “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Remember that when someone responds to you in anger, its usually because you have won the argument. Intelligent debate doesn’t need to get nasty. It’s incredibly silly and against all logic and intelligence that Christians and even Christ are referred to as haters, just because of a disagreement or clashing viewpoint. Its based on ignorance of what the Bible actually tells us, and how it tells us to act. Imagine if all disagreements were treated in such a way? Would we have anyone? Would we even have Christ?

Romans 1:20, “On The Nature of God’s Nature Manifest in Nature”

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. -Romans 1:20

It’s often that a Christian is approached by a non-believer challenging them to prove the existence of God. Usually, it’s not because they truly want to know, but rather it pleases them to see a Christian get tripped up when trying to answer them. This is apparent when one has an answer for them and their response is one of anger.

In an attempt not to go too far off the subject, the question makes the supposition that physicality and existence are not proof enough. Thus, it’s hard to find a proof, empirical proof, that would sway this hypothetical challenger.

The Bible, the very Word of God, is not silent when it comes to this issue, of not just proof of God’s existence being represented in nature, but also of who He is, that is His very being. So why the apparent contradiction in the verse,what are those qualities that are both invisible, but also clearly seen? The verse tells us it’s his divinity and eternal power that are made evident in the creation.

Truth is, that things like power and dominion cannot be understood unless its effect is manifest elsewhere. A king in his own being though granted power is powerless of his own accord unless it is exercised. It is by action that one can empirically determine the traits that reside in mere people. The bible declares that you can know a person due to the fruit he bares (Matthew 7:16, see my note, “On Judging Man and Scepticism”). You can see those qualities in a human being that otherwise may not be seen by his influence on the world around him.

It is the same with God, we gain valuable insight into not only His existence, but also His nature, that is who He is.

Let us suppose for a moment that you want to paint a picture, write a book, some poetry, or a piece of music. Like it or not, whether your a fan of allegory and it is conscious or not, you cannot help but include a piece of yourself in what you create. It may not be exact, but a person can be going through an art gallery and if they have eyes to see can tell quite a bit about the artist by the mere composition alone.

Likewise, God put a piece of Himself in everything, but if you have eyes to see, you can see God even in the most mundane of things. The fact the scriptures confront us with is that this truth is so obvious that no man, none, will be without excuse.

There is no spontaneity concerning something that is created, so to believe such is a contradiction according to Samuel Clark. We see things only coming into being through causality and to suppose at the very beginning there was nothing suggests a contradiction that cannot be resolved. So not just existence itself, but the particulars that make up the cosmos are great places to look if anyone ever wants to see God, for He, among other things, is both obvious and apparent.