Well, we are finally home! If you are one of the many who have left me voicemails or e-mails, I am struggling to get through them today, so please be patient!

It really is good to be home. The cat is so desperate for affection that she wants to scratch or claw at us when we stop petting her and begin to walk away. (In one instance, my wife stopped petting her, but the cat bit me instead of the missus. Either the cat understands the Genesis 2:24 concept of man and wife being one flesh or she is just a dumb animal. I’m betting on the latter.)

Pre-Teen camp is almost my sole focus today and tomorrow, save for some preparation for tonight’s Bible Study in Illinois and tomorrow’s study Rolla, as well as some other items that I won’t bore you with. Friday, we are going to try and run to Troy to verify our camp inventory. If you have volunteered for camp and have not yet heard about your assignment, that should be coming soon.

So, rather than any sort of meaningful discussion today, I thought it would be fun to list some random news items that came to my attention recently. Given the interests of many of you reading this, at least a few of these should pique your curiosity:

• The WSJ’s online Best of the Web feature has been a favorite of mine for a long time, although I do not have the time to read it everyday like I used to. (Two of the three stories below were found linked to by Best of the Web.) In the recent installment, I thought that James Taranto (who creates and manages the feature) did a good job with his “Lying with Statistics” entry, in which he demonstrates an example of iraq war-related statistics being used to say something that a broader view of the statistics do not say. It can be found here: Best of the Web, 5/27/2008.

• Concerns about the economy, the possibility of reaching “peak oil” and other doomsday scenarios are driving more and more people to a “survivalist” approach to life. The AP has an article on the phenomenon here: Energy fears looming, new survivalists prepare.

• Some amazing phots are coming back from the Mars Phoenix mission, but not all of them are from Phoenix, itself. For instance, the two NASA/JPL pictures below are from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (found by reading this article and following to this NASA/JPL collection). The first is actually a picture of Phoenix descending under its parachute (there are several pictures of this descent, available at the NASA/JPL link above), and the second is a picture of Phoenix at its landing spot, with solar panels unfurled.

(looks like a fly, doesn’t it?)

• The Catholic News Agency reports that someone is pressing the European Court of Human Rights to define a particular chimpanzee in Austria to be a human being. Read all about it here: Chimpanzee should be a legal person, animal rights activists say. Hard to imagine cases like this actually succeeding, but stranger things have happened… Reminds me of Mr. Davy Crockett’s Tomorrow’s World commentary of not too long ago: Ten Really Dub Ideas – #5 “Animal Rights”: Treating animals like human beings.

Now, back to work!

The Mars lander, Phoenix, is less than an hour from the surface of Mars as I type (currently doing preconditioning before entering the Martian atmosphere).  I readily admit that I love this stuff.  Since about half of these landings have gone poorly, there is certainly no guarantee that this will go well.  And because the planned landing site is so near the polar ice cap, this has been a very highly anticipated mission.

I have allowed myself to think of things other than Pre-Teen Camp today, taking a break to play a round of Canasta with my wife (on Team Smith) and my aunt-in-law and my sister-in-law (on Team Not-Smith) and now to watch the live coverage of Phoenix’s landing on the Science Channel.  (Coverage is also available on the Internet on three different channels here: http://www.nasa.gov/.)

Given some of the more unpleasant endings to Mars missions, I don’t know if anyone has been making any Phoenix/ashes remarks, yet, and I don’t have the energy to attempt one here. (UPDATE: Scratch that: just heard the dude on TV make one.) (UPDATE #2: Just heard another one, about 90 seconds later.)

Of note on this mission: (1) It will be a soft landing instead of an “air bag” landing, just like the old Viking missions (5 of our last 6 missions have been successful, but 3 of them have been air bag landings); (2) though Phoenix is not a rover, it will have a robotic arm that can dig up soil for analysis; and (3) it should be landing among much water ice–a first for a planet other than the one we live on.

It is also worth noting that it is a relatively cheap mission.  We have discussed the cost of Mars missions before (or at least mentioned them here in a post, “Spirit is willing but NASA’s wallet is weak”, which then turned into a Tomorrow’s World commentary with some tweaking: “As Mars mission ends, our yearning continues”), and this one is much cheaper than the previous Spirit/Opportunity combo.

Well, now I am blogging and missing out on precious TV time, so I will stop here.

OK, I won’t stop yet — the NASA dude on TV just said something funny.  The final stage of the Phoenix’s descent is controlled by 12 rockets that are designed to carry it to a safe landing on the ground.  When explaining what would happen if one of the rockets failed, he said, “The other eleven rockets will take you straight to the crash site.”  Hilarious.

Hope it goes well for you Phoenix!  Assuming you make it, tell your cousins Spirit & Opportunity and your big brothers Viking 1 & Viking 2 that we said howdy.  We’ll be watching…

Saw this headline today on Market Watch: Mars, Buffett to buy Wrigley for $23 billion.

So, not only is there life on Mars, but it is seriously into investing.  I know that more and more foreign nations are buying ownership in American companies, but this is getting ridiculous.

Apparently when the New King James Version translators chose to render the prophetic passage in Deuteronomy 28:43 as “The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower,” they knew something the rest of us didn’t…

Just a quick comment…

Today in Boy #1’s science class he made a model of the atom (oxygen, in this case) using red grapes for protons, green grapes for neutrons, and green peas for electrons.  (For those who enjoy more physics detail, plastic wrap served as the strong force, and toothpicks served as the electromagnetic force. Sort of.)  When he brought it to show me, we were able to discuss what makes an atom a particular kind of atom (as in, what makes this an oxygen atom), and what keeps the protons and electrons together.

I’ve always been a sucker for physics and atomic structure, so I enjoyed it.

But it also brought to mind the old WKRP episode in which the Venus Flytrap character teaches the gang member son of the building’s cleaning lady about the basic structure of the atom in a bid to keep him from quitting school.  Remember that one?  If not (or even if so), here is the Wikipedia summary.

Of course it is not an endorsement of the series as a whole, but I must say that I really enjoyed that program when I was a young lad.  Again, no endorsement–just a true confession! 

Looks as though budget cuts are forcing NASA to put one of the Mars rovers, Spirit, to sleep — possibly permanently — while the other, Opportunity, may have to go to half-duty. Sadly, both rovers are still very capable of operating and are still exploring and sending data, having far outlived their predicted three-month mission and beginning what would be their fifth year now on the red planet.

An AP article on this can be read here: “Cut Forces NASA to Park a Mars Rover”

I know there is much legitimate debate about just how much of the money going to NASA is well spent (“There are so many other more worthy/important/pressing priorities,” “Why are we looking for life up there when we are busy messing it up down here,” etc.), and I do not plan to weigh in on that debate here. If you wish to weigh in yourself in the comments section, please feel free — just be nice.

However, I must say that I was very enamored with the rover missions from the start and followed them fairly closely during the first year. My kids were very interested, too, and we built Lego models of the rovers and viewed many an animation and photograph on the Internet. I remember after hearing that one of the rovers (I don’t recall which) had traveled some particular distance (I don’t recall how far), I took a stroll outside our house that was roughly the same distance just to get a feel for it. The idea of walking along such a distant shore, if you will, was just fascinating to me.

Wasteful or profitable, harmful or beneficial, missions such as theirs — in my opinion — are products, at least in part, of the truth expressed by the Preacher in Ecclesiastes 3:11 when he says, “He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.”

In fact, I think the rovers’ mission expresses both truths of that statement… There is a longing in man for something greater for himself, and a craving to find that something. And, yet, the fullness of the beauty of that “something” we can only know and find in part, until the day when the whole of it is revealed to us:

“For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.”

1 Corinthians 13:12

I look forward to that day when I shall know just as I also am known.

Well, I didn’t think I would see it tonight, but I should have known that it would be repeated.  I’m sitting here watching (typing during the commercials) the end of the Science Channel’s presentation of “Mars Underground,” thanks to their “Space Week” programming this month.  I have wanted to see this flick ever since accidentally stumbling across the website at www.themarsunderground.com, though I was a bit disappointed that it wasn’t longer.

I have to admit: I love this stuff.  I first heard of Robert Zubrin’s “Mars Direct” program a long time ago, but I didn’t know much about it, and the Mars Underground program (now over) explained it really well.  There is definitely a part of me that believes that we can’t seem to get living on earth right, so isn’t it a waste of time spreading our dysfunction elsewhere?  And the money seems hard to justify when there is such a need for more “practical” uses here on our own planet.  (Yes, I am aware of the arguments about pushing our technology and motivating new research, and I have made them myself.)  Ultimately, there is nagging at me the knowledge of the fact that while man does have a destiny in space — as God has promised to one day give us “all things” (Hebrews 2:6-8) — it is not as fragile little carbon-based lifeforms, but as the glorified children of God (cf. 1 John 3:1-2).  Frankly, if we don’t get our spiritual act together the future looks way too bleak to imagine our species surviving long enough to ever achieve the dream setting foot on Mars — let alone the ultimate goal of mankind: establishing a Starbucks on Mars.  (Actually, there’s probably one of those already there…)

But even all of that considered, the thought of going to Mars does excite me, and I loved watching the animations depicting the several proposed elements of the Mars Direct program (or even the Mars Semi-Direct program, though I’m not sure why Zubrin added the “Semi” unless it was simply out of personal disappointment that the new plan is a bit more conservative in its safeguards and margins, since it still looked pretty “direct” to me).  And part of me thinks, “Hey, if they’re not spending that $55 billion on going to Mars, what other kind of damage to life as we know it would Congress waste it on?”

One of the things that I did not see addressed well enough on the show was the incredibly extreme weather on Mars.  I thought they addressed the dangers of exposures to solar radiation and cosmic radiation rather well (if simplistically), and the idea of spinning the crew craft on a tether during the six month trip to accommodate the astronauts to the Martian gravity early was, in my opinion, a very creative concept.  But the weather on Mars is more extreme than anything we have experienced on earth.  I’ve seen some speculations that the static charge generated by some of the intense dust storms could short out electrical systems, which would make for a really bad day.  Still, the rovers Spirit and Opportunity have fared so marvelously that perhaps such a consideration this isn’t much of a mission-prohibitive concern.

In the film Zubrin’s frustration that a generation has passed without this Mars having been explored when it could have been by now (in his estimation), is very clearly communicated.  I don’t know if we will see mankind on Mars during his lifetime, but I will be happy to add giving him a ride to Mars to the growing post-first resurrection “to do” list my kids and I have talked about, which currently includes some related items already: visit Voyagers 1 & 2, visit the original Viking lander, visit the current collection of Mars rovers, visit a black hole, et al.  (Please understand: I don’t really think that Post-Resurrection Me will be all that interested in actually doing these things after my change has come (cf. Job 14:14) — if the principle behind 1 Corinthians 13:11 applies in this life, I am sure that it will apply to our transition to the next, as well!  Yet, Pre-Resurrection Me still finds it fascinating to imagine…)

What’s that smell?  Is it a “whiff of truth or a sniff of lie“?  Nope!  It’s another news potpourri.

•     The Financial Times had a comment column on Monday, January 29, by Lawrence Summers entitled, “America must not surrender its lead in life sciences.”  His point at the beginning is well taken:

“The 20th century was an American century in no small part because of American leadership in the application of the physical sciences…

“If the 20th century was defined by developments in the physical sciences, the 21st century will be defined by developments in the life sciences.  Lifespans will rise sharply as cures are found for chronic diseases and healthcare will come to be a larger share of the economy than manufacturing…

“It is natural to ask whether the US will lead in the life sciences in this century as it did in the physical sciences in the last.  It is a profoundly important economic question, but one whose implications go far beyond to embrace issues of national security and moral leadership.”

OK so far (as long as “in no small part” is seen as a qualifier).  But when he gets to some of the details, we see some of the usual “groupthink” coming out (George Orwell fans will recognize a sense of “duckspeak” in Mr. Summers’ words, while Stephen Colbert buffs will see the usual reliance on “truthiness“).  For example…

“Most abstract, but most important, there needs to be respect for the scientific method and its results.  In sharp distinction to the situation in other industrial countries, there is an increasing move away from respecting the scientific method in US schools.  Polls demonstrate that up to one-third of high school biology teachers have as much faith in intelligent design as in evolution.  Some surveys suggest that as many as 70 per cent of the American people agree with them.  Matters are not helped when the president advocates the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution as a ‘different school of thought’.”

First, by the way, I would like to thank Mr. Summers for recognizing that one must have “faith… in evolution.”  Like any religion, believing in evolution certainly does require faith, and I take it that Mr. Summers is one of Evolutionism’s faithful adherents.  While I suppose that Mr. Summers’ admission is an accidental one, I appreciate it all the same.

However, I take issue with his assumption that one cannot simultaneously respect the scientific method and fail to “have faith” in evolution.  Mr. Summers should stick to economics, as his understanding of the scientific method seems colored by his faith.  (Then again, many scientists’ understanding of the scientific method are similarly colored these days, so perhaps he should feel free to venture out.)

The next bit of groupthink comes out concerning “embryonic stem cell research” — as, perhaps, you could have guessed in an article on this subject.  Here’s his comment:

“And it is not a step towards a healthier 21st century to allow the views of a vocal minority in effect to cut off funding for embryonic stem cell research — which is likely to lead to revolutions in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and cancer within the next generation.”

Ah, groupthink at its best!  Please note the phrase “is likely to lead to revolutions” – one of the usual sorts of phrases we see in discussions on this topic.  (Unlike other, non-controversial stem cell research, which is already producing results.)  Also notice the lack of reference to recently discovered possible alternatives to using embryonic stem cells, such as stem cells harvested from amniotic sac fluid, which do not harm to mother or baby.

And, please do not fail to note the lack of any consideration that there may be a real ethical issue here to be discussed.  I would have more respect for those who are constantly trying to push embryonic stem cell research down the public’s throats if they would at least own up to the fact that there is a necessary discussion of the morality of the work that needs to take place.  Consider Mr. Summers comment with the words “embryonic stem cell research” replaced with “research on our rich supply of comatose elderly patients.”  But that’s not the same sort of thing, many will say.  Yet others say that it is not far removed, if at all, and that is the discussion that most embryonic stem cell research supporters do not wish to have.  For Mr. Summers to speak as if there is no ethical issue to be considered here whatsoever, and yet to mention earlier quoted concern that America will not exercise “moral leadership” is, frankly, a joke.  There is none so blind as they who will not see.

Some of Mr. Summers’ other points are well said (e.g., politics and the diseases of congress members’ relatives determining science money allocation).  However, none of it changes the fact that America’s continuing tendency to shun the God who made her great is what will precipitate the loss of global leadership, not our lack of willingness to toss God’s will aside for the sake of economic success.  To paraphrase a pastor of mine, it is unwise to pursue being first if your strategy is to put God second.  Generally, your strategy won’t work — and when it does you’ll wish it hadn’t.

•     In the (extremely) local news, the office troll’s wife has purchased a small space heater for his subterranean office.  Reports tell us that the office troll and the office troll’s normally cold feet are very appreciative.

•    The “news ticker” at the bottom of the Fox News broadcast I was watching earlier mentioned that scientists in Hong Kong have discovered that the H5N1 strain of the “bird flu” does not have to penetrate “deep” into lungs in order to infect.  (Reference was made to Reuters, but I have not been able to find an article on searching their website.)

Of course, God has warned us that, in addition to “terror,” America will see “wasting disease and fever which shall consume the eyes and cause sorrow of heart” (Lev. 26:16) unless she repents of turning aside from Him and His ways.

•    If you have heard any news at all this morning, you are aware that Florida has been hit by some devastating tornados, causing what is expected to be numerous casualties.

As best I can tell with the limited research I have done, this is a bit unusual for central Florida given the time of year, though — as weather experts try to remind us – tornados can happen anyplace and time if supportive conditions are present.  Our prayers go out to those impacted, and we will keep an eye on the news as it develops.  I know that there is much heartbreak ahead for many Florida as the sunrise begins to shed light on what they have been through.

(If you haven’t ordered our free booklet, Who Controls the Weather?, I recommend that you consider it.  Weather plays a big role in the end times, as we cover in another popular and helpful free booklet, Fourteen Signs Announcing Christ’s Return.  Order them both while you are there, directly from the Tomorrow’s World website.)

•    On Tuesday, January 30, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal about McDonald’s snack wrap and the Chef Dan Coudreaut who created the idea for the fast food giant.  What caught my attention was this bit about another idea that Mr. Coudreaut had:

“Finding products that work inside a McDonald’s has been tricky.  Mr. Coudreaut considered adding a shrimp salad to the menu but couldn’t because, he says, McDonald’s would need so much shrimp that it threatened to deplete the nation’s shrimp supply.”

Eating unclean animals aside (Leviticus 11:10-12), that statement floored me.  McDonald’s couldn’t introduce a shrimp salad because it would threaten to deplete the nation’s supply.  Wow.  Just how many people eat at McDonald’s anyway?  Actually, having finally seen “Supersize Me” on MSNBC recently, I suppose this shouldn’t surprise me as much as it did.  A great many people do eat at McDonalds, and, given the addictive and fattening effects of the McMenu, those people probably eat more than their fair share.  (I speak from experience, though my vices lie with other restaurant chains.)  Makes me wonder if America is at risk of becoming a McNation.  I’m not sure what that means, but it is fun typing “McNation.”

•    The AP reports that a group of scientists have finally concluded their study on the possibility that human activity has caused global warming.  Actually, the more precise statement of the conclusion is probably that given by scientist Susan Solomon in the article that “the increase in greenhouse gases is dominated by human activities,” which leaves open the possibility that global temperatures are rising due to other, natural factors, as well and that humans are simply exacerbating the situation.

If I recall, I read earlier this week in the build up to the release of this report that China, and not the US, was one of the leading nations opposing the adoption of stronger language.  Given that nation’s dependency on fossil fuels to power its growing economic machine (which also means powering its growing military machine, as well), this is not surprising.

I appreciate that they have attached a quantitative ”confidence level” to this report: “The scientists said global warming was ‘very likely’ caused by human activity, a phrase that translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that it is caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels.”  While it does not reduce the gravity of the report’s conclusion, it does help the statement to avoid the air religious fanaticism that adherents to Fundamental Environmentalism often bring to such reports.

I hope that the report is considered seriously and that people will avoid knee-jerk reactions in either direction, either pro or con.  (I will admit that my own knee jerks in the more conservative direction of skepticism, but I am trying to subdue that knee for the sake of more critical thinking, with an eye to 2 Cor. 10:5.)  Revelation 11:18 does say that a time is coming when God will “destroy those who destroy the earth.”  Nailing this prophecy down to only global warming is a mistake.  Yet, too, is it a mistake to see this as an endorsement of the view some have that we somehow “owe” our “mother earth” something.  The earth is a resource, a dominion, and an inheritance — not an object of worship.  Yet, we are appointed by God as its stewards (cf. Genesis 1:26-28; 2:15) and as such have a responsibility to our Master to tend and keep it well (1 Cor. 4:2).

•    Since regular readers of this blog have done some thinking about life on Mars, I thought it would be worthwhile to mention a Space.com article that JW sent to me.  Posted on January 29, the article, “Study: Surface of Mars Devoid of Life,” says that the newest issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters will report that any life on Mars will of necessity be found only very deep:

Unlike Earth, Mars is no longer protected by a global magnetic field or thick atmosphere. As a result, the planet has been vulnerable to radiation from space for billions of years.

“Even the hardiest cells we know of could not possibly survive the cosmic radiation near the surface of Mars for that long,” said study leader Lewis Dartnell of University College London.

Consequently, even in some of the most promising sites, such as what the article calls a ”frozen sea” in a major Martian volcanic area, life would have to be no closer to the surface than several meters.

The article has more details to give, and I will leave them to those who wish to follow the link and peruse the article for themselves.  Whether Mars was once lush and living and suffered from Satan’s fall, or whether it has always been simply raw materials suffering decay while waiting for the “glorious liberty of the children of God” (Romans 8:21), one thing is for sure: currently, it is not a good place for a summer home — even if you are a microbe.

•    In another article sent to me by JW, WorldNetDaily published a fascinating interview with an aspiring Palestinian suicide bomber.  Posted here back on November 24, 2006, you might find it worth a read.  Even if you are not a WorldNetDaily fan (and it is certainly a biased news source), I greatly doubt that they created the interview out of whole cloth.

I think the interview adds a human dimension to suicide bombers that isn’t often reflected upon in these murderous acts.  And, if anything, it should cause some rethinking amongst those who think that land concessions will solve the problem or that poverty and other similar cause célèbre are the chief causes behind such horrific actions.

In particular, I thought this was an interesting exchange:

WND: What do you think about the Unites States?

BOMBER: I have no interest in the American culture which is an empty culture with no values. It is full of immorality and elements that are forbidden by Allah, like free sex and violence.

WND: So I take it you don’t listen to American music or watch American movies?

BOMBER: I do not watch American movies and regret those days before the intifada (the Palestinian terror war that started in 2000) when I used to watch American movies like “Platoon” and that film that was made under the water.

These are stupid things and I ask Allah to forgive me for those hours I spent watching this nonsense.

In my opinion, America is the big enemy leading the war against Islam, Muslims, Palestinians and against anything that threatens the Zionist enemy.

“I have no interest in the American culture which is an empty culture with no values. It is full of immorality and elements that are forbidden by Allah, like free sex and violence.”  Too many Americans think that once our brand of freedom gets a toehold in the Muslim world, many will begin clamoring for it.  They don’t recognize (or they recognize but don’t appreciate) that the American version of “freedom” in the eyes of many Muslims means having their daughters wallow in a culture that will powerfully encourage them to dress (or undress) like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and to act like whores.  If that “freedom” is considered an inherent and essential part of what we have to offer, it’s going to continue to be a hard sell.

Well, I think that’s going to be it for now.  I have more priorities today than I have fingers and toes to count them on, but I hope you have found at least something to tickle your nose in this potpourri.  They aren’t the top news items of the day, or even the most impactful.  But then again, there are sources much better equipped than I to deliver such things, as I’m sure you all would agree.

(In looking back at this little potpourri mixture, I now see a number of things that probably deserved their a post akk their own.  It certainly would have made them more indexable and easier to find in subject specific searches.  Oh well, live and learn!  Perhaps I will break them out at another time.)

I suspect that the office troll will crawl back to his computer at least once more today and make another blog entry, but in the event that I do not let me say that I hope you have a profitable and meaningful Sabbath!

To summarize what we’ve discussed so far, the Bible – looking at the whole of the revelation and not coming to it with preconceived notions – is seen to describe an earth that was created and existed long before the recreation account given in Genesis 1:2-2:7.  Before the state of chaos and ruin in which we find it in Genesis 1:2, it was inhabited by angels, placed there and given authority do that they might fulfill God’s purpose and serve His plan.  The leader of these angels, Lucifer, rebelled against God, becoming the being now known as Satan the devil, and ultimately about one-third of the angels joined him in this rebellion.  That rebellion ended as all such rebellions do: in failure.  Their sin resulted in the destruction of the world, bringing it into a state of tohu and bohu – it was now a desolate waste and a chaotic ruin.

But God’s plan will not be thwarted, and the earth is renewed over the course of six days, culminating in the creation of man on that day and a Sabbath rest on the next.  Deceived and tempted by that being Satan, who still sits in authority over this world, man took the wrong path in those early days and chose to decide right and wrong for himself instead of accepting God’s revelation of right and wrong.  So the path to tohu and bohu began to be trod anew.

This catches us up with the earth.  But what of the rest of creation?  Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth.  The word “heavens” is, indeed, plural, though not all translations make this clear.  Does the Bible speak of multiple “heavens”?  Yes, it does: the heaven of the earth’s atmosphere (Daniel 2:38); the heaven of space, home of the stars and planets (Isaiah 13:10); and the “third heaven” of the spiritual realm and God’s throne (2 Cor. 12:2).  Genesis 1:1 suggests that the word “creation” – in its broadest meaning – encompasses all of these things.  The earth is surely God’s handiwork, yet so too are the moon, the sun, the stars and the planets.

Romans 8:20-21 teaches us something interesting.  It says that, “the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”  Some have interpreted “creation” here to mean this earth, which was so subjected at Adam’s sin.  Others have said that “the creation” is the society of man and was so subjected at the confusion of Babel.  But there is no need to limit “the creation” in this way.  Actually, Romans 8:22 adds the context that the “whole creation” is under discussion: “For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.”

We have sent numerous probes and space craft into the solar system and beyond.  And while the images they bring back are marvelous to behold and stir the imagination, the scenes always communicate the same message: a creation subjected to futility.  Mars, specifically, has been the source of awesome pictures, from the time that Viking landed on its surface until now, when Spirit and Opportunity are roaming and exploring its rugged landscapes.  Pictures from such images always, as varied as they may be, always fit within the same theme, and show us a wasteland, desolate and uninhabitable.  I marveled at the first images I saw transmitted back from the most recent missions, but – right or wrong – two words constantly leapt into my mind as I gazed at them: tohu and bohu.

And the thought makes me wonder: Did the rebellion of Satan and his demons have any consequences beyond the earth?  Was only the earth a beautiful place before that rebellion?   A war in one’s land brings devastation to more than the combatants, themselves, and the effects of humanity’s aggression are often felt far and wide – and the longer the war, the greater the potential for devastation.  What havoc might a war in the spirit realm cause?  How long might such a war last?  God says that with Him a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day (2 Peter 3:8).  We know that time passes for angelic beings (Daniel 10:12-13), but just what is the nature of their relationship to the flow of time?  Resisting the temptation to be too dogmatic (to which I am sure some readers feel I caved a long time ago), we must at least admit that what we don’t know opens up many possibilities.

Was Mars always in such a devastated state as this?  Scientists who have no “dog in the hunt” in terms of Biblical understanding and interpretation have certainly envisioned a “wetter, warmer” Mars in the distant past.  Is there room in Scripture for such a possibility?

While Scripture doesn’t mandate a “life worthy” Mars, I don’t see any passage in the Bible in which it is ruled out.  As far as I can tell, it is entirely feasible within the boundaries of Scripture that in that distant past Mars was a lovely creation, with lakes, oceans, forests – possibly even animal life.  The picture painted by the whole of Scripture demands Adam and Eve to be the first humans beings, in possession of the human spirit and capable of having a relationship with God.  But is there any such restriction on animal life?  I don’t see one – much less on microbes and single-celled organisms, which might be considered more closely related in terms of their importance and role on earth to the non-animal organic landscape of our planet than they are to complex animal life.  (This would seem to fit the view of some authors, such as Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee in Rare Earth).

Given the possibilities for a solar system that could have been in a much better state before the state of tohu and bohu to which (at least) the earth was exposed, what might we find while exploring the desolate landscape of Mars?

• Nothing?

Certainly a possibility.  Rocks.  Dirt.  Craters.  Maybe some liquid water under the surface.  Scripture certainly doesn’t rule out the possibility that what we we’ve seen already is all there is to see.

• Fossilized microorganisms?

Again, I don’t see anything that rules that possibility out.  (For the record: I do not believe that famed Martian meteorite ALH84001 contains fossilized evidence of life on Mars.  While I suppose it is possible, the other more reasonable explanations seem, at the very least, to make the jump to an “Aha! Life!” conclusion a bit hasty.)

• Live microorganisms – perhaps under the surface?

Now that would be fascinating.  Certain bacteria (often called extremophiles) can survive in the harshest of environments here on earth, and it is even possible that some can survive traveling through space, embedded within dust grains and protected from harmful radiation (Rare Earth, p. 73).  Again, I don’t see this as being ruled out by scripture.

• Fossilized complex, non-human life – say the equivalent of a tree, insect, or animal?

Why not?  Could the young Mars – as a part of a beautiful original creation, before it may ravaged by the angelic war that took place in that distant past – have been a beautiful paradise, full of fields and streams and creatures of amazing variety, like we see here on earth?  Was there a Yellowstone somewhere on its surface?

I would be as giddy as the stereotypical schoolgirl if the Mars rover Opportunity were to roll up to a cliff and find exposed there a fossilized grizzly bear, or a petrified Redwood tree – or even the impression of a dragonfly.  Signs of complex life on Mars would be the news of the century.  But highly “evolved,” complex life that appeared to remarkably match that of earth’s would be more than that: It would cause all but the blindest of souls to question whether such life could have “evolved” at all.

Yet, personally, I suspect that any complex life that might have been placed on a beautiful, “original creation” Mars would be wonderfully different than what we see here.  Similar in theme, just as life here seems to display many common themes, but expressive of that love God seems to have for variety – an attribute so remarkably and beautifully displayed here on Earth (cf. Romans 1:20).  Here on our small blue and green sphere, we find such a thrilling yet humbling variety of living things.  What wonders crafted by the hand of God may have trod the ground of a Martian forest?

The time before Genesis 1:2 leaves much room to speculate!  And speculation can be a great deal of fun – as long as we do not lose sight of the fact that it is, as beautiful as the thought may be, only speculation.  And speculation does have its limits, leading us to the last question…

• Fossilized man?

No way.  Here our speculation comes to an abrupt end.  Man is an original creation on the earth, the tale of which is told in Genesis 1 & 2.  Adam and Eve were the first.  Unlike all the animals that were created on the sixth day in Genesis 1, which were created “according to their kind” (Gen. 1:24-25), man is uniquely not described as being created after a “man kind.”  Rather, man is described as being created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26).  Taken together, these three verses, vv. 24-25, paint a remarkable and wondrous picture, as if God is saying, “Let us make the animals after their kind, but let Us make man after Our kind…”  And that is exactly what God did.

That great God, both the Most High (whom we now call the Father) and the living Word (whom we now call the Son) created man to be after the God kind…  a fact that is one of many remarkable clues to our ultimate destiny.  (But that’s a different blog entry!)

For those who have trolled through all of these “Life on Mars” entries, I greatly appreciate your patience, and I hope that the “payoff” hasn’t been too disappointing.  After working so hard to swim through my verbosity, arriving at a conclusion of “Life on Mars? Maybe…” may seem small wages for your toil!  At the same time, I hope it has helped to put the search for “life” on Mars into perspective.  The history of the universe is more amazing than we know, and it is a history surpassed only by its incredible future – a future prophesied to be under the direction and loving care of the expanded God Family (Hebrews 2:5-8; Romans 8:16-22).  Regardless of the verdict as to whether or not there has ever been life on Mars – indeed, whether there is any there now – the Bible does seem to say that there will be one day.

So, as I said many posts ago, I do believe that Mars will be “terraformed” one day, but not the way that our current generation of scientists and futurists foresee!  It won’t be at the hands of a greedy human race, barely capable of managing it’s own planet.  Rather, if Mars is transformed into the beautiful jewel that may have once been, it will be at the hands of the glorious sons and daughters of God, as their Kingdom – the Kingdom of God – grows forever, increasing without end (Isaiah 9:7).

“Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end.  Amen.”

Ephesians 3:20-21, KJV

[If you would like to look further at the connection between the future of the universe and the future of man, consider reading our brief article, Will We Conquer Space?, and (even better) ordering our absolutely free booklet Your Ultimate Destiny, which goes into much more detail and explains – straight from your Bible – why you were born and the mind-numbingly glorious plan God has for you.]

As we covered in the last post on this topic, Genesis 1:1-2 can be legitimately translated this way:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  But the earth had become a desolation and a chaotic ruin; and darkness covered the face of the deep.

This is the translation that fits both the language and the complete revelation of God’s word (if we trust the Bible to interpret itself as opposed to filling it with our own ideas).  And we saw from Scripture that this state of desolation and ruin (Hebrew: tohu and bohu) results from God’s wrath upon sin.

But Adam has not yet been created.  Genesis proceeds with the account of the re-creation of the earth (Psalm 104:30, “You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; and You renew the face of the earth”), and on the sixth day of that creation, Adam and Eve are brought into existence.  We know that it is due to the sin of Adam that death entered into the world we now live in (Romans 5:12-14).  If the creation was devastated before Adam due to sin, whose sin would that be?

The answer lies in the fact that Adam and Eve were not the only sentient (thinking) beings in the Garden of Eden, for soon after their creation we are introduced to the serpent:

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.  And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.  For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 3:1-5

The “serpent of old” is Satan the devil (Rev. 12:9).  And clearly, though he is only now introduced to us, he is already an evil and sinning creature, lying to and deceiving Eve (2 Corinthians 11:3).  Being already in this state, his sin precedes Adam and Eve’s.  And in this, he is our best candidate for the sin resulting in the destruction of the earth.

Does the Bible say anything about earth’s history before Adam?  Anything at all from which we can put together more of the picture?  For while we should respect all that the Bible says, we should respect where it is silent, as well — and if the Bible says nothing of the time between Genesis 1:1 & Genesis 1:2, then neither should we.  However, it does speak a little of this time, and rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) we will see some of that pre-Adamic history come to life in its pages.

Note that Genesis does not speak of the creation of the angels, though they certainly existed.  Genesis 3:24 speaks of cherubim, a kind of angel, being placed east of the Garden of Eden to prevent mankind from returning to the Tree of Life and living forever in his sinful state.  Job 38:6-7 tells us that the angels (the “morning stars” and “sons of God”) were present when the very foundation, the cornerstone of the earth was laid — indeed, it says that they sang and shouted for joy at the event!  These spirit beings are God’s ministers (Hebrews 1:7, Psalm 104:4) meant to serve ”those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14) — mankind.

Among these angelic beings, created before the foundation of the world was laid was a being called Lucifer.  And he was magnificent — until sin was found in him…  His tale is told dramatically in two places in prophecy: Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14.  In both places, a prophecy is being spoken about an earthly ruler, but included in the prophecy are words that can fit no earthly ruler — words that can only be meant for the spiritual power behind the throne (cf. Daniel 10).  Let us look, first, at Ezekiel 28:

Son of man, take up a lamentation for the king of Tyre, and say to him, “Thus says the Lord GOD:

‘You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.  You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering: the sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.  The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created.

‘You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.  You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you.

‘By the abundance of your trading you became filled with violence within, and you sinned; therefore I cast you as a profane thing out of the mountain of God; and I destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the fiery stones.’”

Ezekiel 28:12-16

“You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you.“  I Timothy 3:6 tells us that pride brought the devil his condemnation.  We read more details in Isaiah 14:

How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!

For you have said in your heart:

“I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north;

“I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.”

Isaiah 14:12-14

In his pride and arrogance, we see Lucifer — who would become Satan, or the Adversary — decide in the pride of his heart that he could exalt his throne above the stars of God, to be “like the Most High.”  And as there can be only one “Most High” it must be clear that Lucifer’s — Satan’s — intention was to take over the throne of God!  Scripture even indicates that as many as one-third of the angels followed him in this rebellion (Revelation 12:4).  Daniel 10 depicts spirit beings resisting the angelic servants of God, and 2 Peter 2:4 clearly states that “God did not spare the angels who sinned…”  Jude 6 mentions them, as well.

But let’s not overlook some key details that can give us more information.  When Jude 6 mentions these sinning angels, it states: “And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode…”  What was their proper domain?  It would be easy to assume this was heaven, but don’t be so quick to assume!  The NIV translates the words “proper domain” as “positions of authority” and Young’s Literal Translation puts it as their “own principality.”  The word that the NKJV translates “domain” carries with it the feel of a location in which one possesses an assignment of responsibility and authority, and more than a simple “home.”

Where had the principality of these angels been before their rebellion?  Where were they exercising authority before their leader, Satan, instilled within them pride and ambition?  It was not heaven, as Isaiah 14:13 makes clear when it says that Lucifer declared he would “ascend into heaven.”  So he must have been below heaven, else he would not need to ascend.  And in verse 14 we get a crucial clue as to the location of his principality: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds…”  Such a statement places one below the clouds — thus, on the earth.

Could it be that Satan the devil — before his rebellion and his sin — and his pre-fallen angels possessed authority over the earth in some way?  Could it be that the earth was the principality they ruled, and the abode which they left to rebel against the government of God?  That is the clearest implication of the Scriptures we have read.  And it makes sense of other verses, as well!

That Satan has authority as a ruler in some great sense is clear from Scripture.  For instance, in Jude 8-9 Michael the archangel is seen as respecting the authority of Satan as one would a peer.  But consider that Paul often speaks of Satan as if he has a position of authority over this world, calling him the “god of this age” in 2 Corinthians 4:4, and the “prince of the power of the air” in Ephesians 2:2.  Jesus, Himself, refers to Satan as the “ruler of this world” (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11).  Then consider, too, that in his temptation of Christ when he offers the Lord all the kingdoms of the world, the devil says, “All this authority I will give you, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish.“  GOD is ultimately the giver of authority (cf. Romans 13:1; Daniel 2:21, 4:32; John 19:11, et al.), and Satan could NOT be the ruler of this world had God not given him the authority.  And Ezekiel 28:14-15 makes it clear that Satan was “established” or “ordained” in authority by God while he was still the perfect Lucifer and before iniquity was found in him.

There are additional verses we could look at but let’s stop here and look at the picture thus painted by the complete revelation of Scripture…

Sometime in the distant past — how long is not revealed, but longer than 6,000 years ago — the angels were created.  Among them was a beautiful and glorious being called Lucifer.  These angels sang and shouted for joy at the founding of the earth, and a number of them, perhaps one-third, were placed on this planet to accomplish God’s purpose.  The earth was placed under their authority and jurisdiction as a principality, and they were to act as God’s stewards and servants on behalf of those who would ultimately inherit all things: mankind.  However, Lucifer, who was their leader, became filled with pride.  His sin spread through many if not all under his influence, and with them he launched a rebellious assault on God’s throne in heaven.  This being — now called Satan — met with defeat, as do all those foolish enough to rebel against the Most High, and he and his minions were cast out of heaven, fallen creatures.  The end result was not a Satan crowned ruler of all the universe.  Rather, it was a devastating defeat of cosmic proportions, and the land in which these angels — now demons — had conceived and given birth to their sin lay in ruins.  The world that had been under their care, intended as the future home of man, had become tohu and bohu — desolation and a chaotic ruin — as a result of their sin.

God’s purpose remains, however, and rather than being the end of the story, Genesis 1:2 is the beginning.  With this background we are finally equipped: What does the Bible say, if anything, about life on Mars — past, present, or future?  (You probably thought I had completely forgotten about Mars, huh?)  Let’s take a look at these prospects next time.

The question we have asked is, “What does the Bible say, if anything, about life on Mars?”

Answering this question requires us to first understand Genesis 1:1-2.  My NKJV translates this passage as follows:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Many have remarked about the odd words “without form and void” used in Genesis 1:2.  What do they mean?  And why was the earth in such a state?  Was it so created?  The NIV translates this, “Now the earth was formless and empty.”  The NASB has, “The earth was formless and void,” and (at least in the Updated Edition) mentions in the footnotes that the description could be translated “waste and emptiness.”  The ASV has, “And the earth was waste and void.”  The Darby Bible reads, “And the earth was waste and empty,” and Young’s Literal Translation gives the phrase as, “the earth hath existed waste and void.”

Of much interested should be the translation in The Living Bible.  Admittedly, The Living Bible (TLB) is a paraphrase, and shouldn’t be used on the surface for establishing doctrine.  But that does not mean that the thought and scholarship going into the TLB translation cannot be beneficial in any way.  In fact, here, in which we are trying to understand the sense of the words used, it may prove to be very helpful.

The Living Bible translates the first portion of Genesis 1:2 to say, “the earth was a shapeless, chaotic mass.”  Of particular note should be the TLB footnote for this passage.  It reads,

“The earth was, or ‘The earth became.’  a shapeless, chaotic mass, or “shapeless and void.”…There is not one correct way to translate these words.”

We should take note of that: “There is not one correct way to translate these words.”  While I do not agree with such a sentiment taken too far (there is a correct way, and that is whatever way communicates what God intended to say), it should give us pause and bring us to admit that this passage — taken alone – admits of many possible interpretations.

Consider, some translations include the connector word between v.1 & v.2, “and” — which can also be translated “but” in some circumstances — while others don’t.  Also, the TLB footnote mentions that the phrase, “the earth was,” in v.2 could be translated, “the earth became,” and other sources vouch for such a translation of the Hebrew verb hayah in this way — “became” or “had come to be” instead of simply ”was.”  In fact, some note that the fact that the verb hayah is used here, at all, suggests that something of deeper significance is being communicated, beyond what we tend to get from a simple “was.”  Strong’s Greek/Hebrew Dictionary notes that the word hayah is “always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary,” while Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old Testament Words says this (emphasis mine): ”Often this verb indicates more than simple existence or identity (this may be indicated by omitting the verb altogether). Rather, the verb makes a strong statement about the being or presence of a person or thing. Yet the simple meaning ‘become’ or ‘come to pass’ appears often in the English versions.”

(For an example of communicating the simple idea of “was” by not using a verb at all in Hebrew, you might look at the phrase, “And God saw that it was good,” which is repeated many times in Genesis 2.  In many Bibles, the word “was” here is in italics, meaning that it was simply left out in Hebrew as being implied, and that a “be” verb was not necessary to state.  In contrast, Genesis 1:2 states the “be” verb very emphatically, indicating that God is trying to tell us something… As Vine’s says: more than “simple existence or identity.”)

Then there are the words “without form and void.”  The Hebrew words, here, are tohu and bohu, respectively.  Tohu was translated variously above as formless/shapeless/waste.  Other resources (Strong’s, Lexicons, etc.) give “desolation” or “place of chaos” as meanings to consider.  Bohu, too, doesn’t communicate pleasant things — translated variously as void/empty/emptiness/chaotic above, Strong’s volunteers ”an undistinguishable ruin” as a meaning in some contexts.

Seeing all of this, we can understand the footnote in The Living Bible — there does seem to be a great deal of “room” in this verse for optional translation.  I don’t know about you, but I am no expert in ancient languages – and even if I were, it looks as though there is some disagreement among them, as well (go figure).  So how do we know what God is trying to say?

Isaiah 28:9-10 gives us an important Scriptural key to understanding the Bible:

Whom will he teach knowledge?  And whom will he make to understand the message?  Those just weaned from milk?  Those just drawn from the breasts?  For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.

We must consider the whole of God’s revelation to fully understand His mind on a certain matter.  And the matter of creation is no different.

Thankfully, God does communicate this “without form and void” sentiment in other places, and we can look to those to put Genesis 1:2 into perspective.  Consider Jeremiah 4:23-26 –

I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form (tohu), and void (bohu);
And the heavens, they had no light.
I beheld the mountains, and indeed they trembled,
And all the hills moved back and forth.
I beheld, and indeed there was no man,
And all the birds of the heavens had fled.
I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land was a wilderness,
And all its cities were broken down
At the presence of the LORD,
By His fierce anger.

Here, the parallel to Genesis 1:2 is striking, yet — unlike in Genesis — it is made clear that the state of tohu and bohu the land experienced was a result of God’s “fierce anger.”  As He says in v.27, because of His wrath, “[t]he whole land shall be desolate…”

The entire passage in Jeremiah 4 is worth reading to get the full context.  God is telling us that because of sin, he is bringing the land to a state of waste and chaos — turning it into a desolation and an indistinguishable ruin.

Consider another passage, Isaiah 34:8-12.  Here, we read,

For it is the day of the LORD’s vengeance,
The year of recompense for the cause of Zion.
Its streams shall be turned into pitch,
And its dust into brimstone;
Its land shall become burning pitch.
It shall not be quenched night or day;
Its smoke shall ascend forever.
From generation to generation it shall lie waste;
No one shall pass through it forever and ever.
But the pelican and the porcupine shall possess it,
Also the owl and the raven shall dwell in it.
And He shall stretch out over it
The line of confusion (tohu) and the stones of emptiness (bohu).
They shall call its nobles to the kingdom,
But none shall be there, and all its princes shall be nothing.

Again, we see confusion and emptiness — tohu and bohu — resulting from God’s wrath on sin.  In “the day of the LORD’s vengeance” we have Him actively transforming a land into a state of desolation and uninhabitable ruin.

Finally, let’s consider Isaiah 45:18.

For thus says the LORD,
Who created the heavens,
Who is God,
Who formed the earth and made it,
Who has established it,
Who did not create it in vain (tohu),
Who formed it to be inhabited:
“I am the LORD, and there is no other.”

What do these passages tell us?  We have tohu and bohu resulting from God’s active destruction of the land — making it a disorderly ruin as a consequence of sin.  And we have a statement saying that when God created the earth, He did not create it tohu, though many take Genesis 1:1-2 to say just the opposite — that He did create it tohu.

These verses should make it clear that the option of translating Genesis 1:2 as “the earth became” is the better one.  Tohu and bohu — translated in the NKJV as “without form and void” but translated in other places to indicate a chaotic and uninhabitable desolation or ruin — represent a state that results from God’s wrath on sin, not the state one would expect of God’s perfect act of creation.  Indeed, we are told that God is not the author of confusion in 1 Cor. 14:33; when God brings about destruction it is the consequence of sin, just as the chaotic splatter of burning liquid and random scattering of broken ceramic shards are the consequence of dropping your coffee mug.

This leaves us with an understanding of Genesis 1:1-2 that is best expressed by some subtle changes to the translation as given by the NKJV.  Consider this as a possibility:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  But the earth became without form and void [or a desolation and a chaotic ruin]; and darkness covered the face of the deep.

Such a translation pictures the events of Genesis 1 & 2 as a recrafting of a ruined earth — an earth that was created with the heavens at some time in the distant past (Genesis 1:1), but after falling into a state of destruction and chaos as a consequence of sin (Genesis 1:2), it was reshaped by the hand of a loving God to continue the fulfillment of His purpose.  As we read in Romans 8:20-21,

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

God created Adam and Eve during “creation week” as described in Genesis 2 & 3 on the re-created, re-ordered, and re-beautified earth 6,000 years ago, continuing His plan which will soon culminate in “the glorious liberty of the children of God.”  The earth and the heavens were originally created, however, some time before this event, in a time before the creation of Adam.  This is the only scenario that fits the Hebrew language, fits the complete revelation of Scripture, and fits the theological and doctrinal structure on which other Biblical concepts depend.

So, what happened between Genesis 1:1 & Genesis 1:2?  If the destruction of the earth was a consequence of sin, whose sin was it if Adam and Eve had not yet been created?  Does the Bible speak about the pre-Adamic history of the earth and how it came to be in the state of chaos and destruction described in Genesis 1:2?  And what in the world does this have to do with Mars?  I will address these questions in the next post on this topic.