I was delighted with the rapid and vigorous response to the first set of notes. A few comments on those responses would be in order. As one reader notes, if anyone wants to know the exegetical and theological principles upon which I do my work, they are clearly delineated in my books What the Bible Says About the End-Time (theological principles) and The Deep Things of God (exegetical principles). I consider these principles a work in progress, yet they have not been confronted with significant objections in the last twenty years (I have been teaching them well before the dates of publication), so they are a useful in ferreting out the evidence of the biblical text. Those who don’t follow principles like these tend to overlook significant evidence, leading to problematic conclusions.

While the word "Armageddon" occurs only once in the whole Bible (Rev 16:16), it is clearly the defining point of the sixth and seventh plagues (Rev 16:12-21), which are elaborated in chapter 17, although the word "Armageddon" is not repeated there. I am well aware of the "har-moed" interpretation, but have not gone in that direction because it requires too much of a stretch (I believe) in the linguistic move from moed to mageddon. For the scholarly details, see my entry on Armageddon in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, volume 1.

I agree that more words would be desirable, but that is not a decision for me to make. I understand the reluctance of some to even have an "Adventist study Bible" and I hesitated on those grounds, but since the project was going ahead with or without me, I thought it was too significant to ignore. It might have more of an impact on people’s thinking than anything else I have written, I’d be a fool not to try to make a difference in this way.

It does not seem to me that a project like this violates Rev. 22:18-19, as one reader suggests. It seems plain to me that the passage warns against tampering with the wording of Revelation itself rather than warning against interpretation of the text. If the latter were the case, we should have nothing at all to say about the Bible. Don’t preach it, comment on it or write about it, just read it! I note that the writer raising the concern also writes about Revelation, so I am not sure I follow the point.

Anyway, here’s the next batch of notes:

17:1-18 This chapter elaborates on the sixth and seventh plagues (16:12-21).

17:1 one of. . . bowls. Probably the sixth bowl-angel (16:12), as the waters of this verse are the Euphrates River. harlot. Prostitute. See 17:4-5. many waters. See 17:15; Jer. 51:13. The river of Babylon (Euphrates).

17:2 See 14:8.

17:3-6a A vision of prostitute Babylon riding on a beast.

17:3 in the Spirit. See note on 1:10. wilderness. See 12:6, 14. woman. Same as prostitute of 17:1, 5. scarlet beast. See 12:3 and 13:1-2. Represents worldwide political power in support of Babylon.

17:4-5 Many parallels between prostitute Babylon and the OT High Priest (Exod. 28:1-43). A counterfeit end-time religious system (see 16:13, 19), the heir of the medieval papacy. forehead, name. In Hebrew context, a reflection of character.

17:6 the martyrs of Jesus. See 6:9-11. Many interpreters note that the medieval papacy produced more martyrs than any other opponent of God’s people.

I thought it would be great to get some feedback from visitors to this web site. So I will share the notes I have made on the Battle of Armageddon texts in the Book of Revelation (Rev 16:12 - 17:18). I have added the notes on Rev 16:12-21 below and will share the notes on chapter 17 when they are ready in a few days. Enjoy, and let me know what you think!

16:1-21 Many parallels with seven trumpets of Revelation 8-11. Trumpets affect thirds of the earth, these plagues affect the whole earth. The first four bowl-plagues are probably to be taken literally, as there is not a natural symbolic meaning. The last three bowl-plagues have clear symbolic reference.

16:12 Euphrates. See note on 9:14. Babylon’s defense system (Jer. 50:35-38). Here represents political powers of the world (17:1, 15). dried up. See Isa. 44:24-28. Here means Babylon’s loss of political support (17:16). east. Literally "sunrise." See Luke 1:78; Matt. 24:27.

16:13-15 The symbolism implies the possibility of human decision, so these verses describe prior events leading up to the sixth plague and Armageddon.

16:13 unclean spirits. See 18:2. Agents of the dragon, beast and false prophet. frogs. Recalls Exod. 8:1-9. Dragon, beast, false prophet. The counterfeit trinity of Revelation 12-13. Together they make up end-time Babylon (16:19).

16:14 demons. Satanic angels. Counterparts to the three angels of 14:6-12. signs. See 13:13-14. kings of the earth. Equivalent to Euphrates River, as defined in 17:15.

16:15 thief, awake. Recalls Matt. 24:43-44; Luke 12:38-40; 1 Thess. 5:1-6. blessed. See note on 1:3. garments, naked, shame. Allusion to 3:17-18.

16:16 they. Actually "he." Armageddon. A Hebrew/Greek mixture meaning "mountain of Megiddo." Could recall Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18) or OT battles at Megiddo (Judg. 5:19).

16:17 out of the temple. See 15:6. throne. There is no distinction in Revelation between the heavenly temple and God’s throne room.

16:18 noises. . . earthquake. See 4:5; 8:5; 11:19.

16:19 great city. See note on 11:8. Babylon. Summary fulfillment of 14:8-11. three parts. See 16:13.

16:21 talent. 30-45 kilograms. blasphemed. Confirms unwillingness of the wicked to repent during the plagues.

First, the gospel writers never mention the Bible in their accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Elsewhere in the gospels, there are multiple quotations and allusions from the Old Testament. In the resurrection stories of the gospels there are none, even though Paul always associates the resurrection with "according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3-4). The Fourth Gospel even tells us that the disciples did not know the OT prophecies about the resurrection (John 20:9). The resurrection of Jesus was a surprise. Only later did they study the Scriptures to understand the meaning of the resurrection. Their study of the Bible did not lead them to expect the resurrection of Jesus. The best explanation of that story is that they fully believed it had actually happened.

Second, the presence of women as the primary witnesses to the resurrection is striking. Women were not regarded as credible witnesses in the ancient world. Paul completely ignores the role of the women in the story (1 Cor 15:4-8). No one in the ancient world would fabricate a story in which women were the primary evidence the story was true. The best explanation of the women in the gospel stories is that those stories recall actual events that didn’t follow the expected script.

Third, someone fabricating the story of a resurrection would embellish the appearance of the resurrected one in the attempt to make their belief credible and convincing. Instead, the resurrected Jesus is quite ordinary in the gospels. He is not some shining superstar. He is easily mistaken for a gardener or a fellow traveler along the road. The best explanation for the low-key element in these stories is that they actually happened.

Fourth and finally, the gospel stories about the resurrection never connect it with the hope of the Second Coming. Elsewhere in the NT the resurrection of Jesus is always connected with the Christian’s future hope (see 1 Cor 15: 20-23, for example). But in the gospel stories of Jesus’ resurrection there is no mention of the Second Coming, life after death, or the resurrection of the righteous. The best explanation of this is that the gospel stories were not manufactured at the end of the first century on the basis of Christian theology, rather they reflect the actual circumstances that created Christian faith in the first place. The gospels stories are not the product of faith, they are the origin of it. The stories are very early, before the time of Paul and have not been substantially altered in the process of transmission and reflection.

Wright concludes that the compelling power of early Christian faith lay in the conviction that something unique had happened among them, something not even imagined before (Jewish faith anticipated an end-time resurrection of the righteous as a whole, but not an individual resurrection within history, the Gentiles anticipated nothing of either sort). In the midst of history, God Himself came down in the form of a man and by dying and rising in a tangible body, completely reshaped the world view of those who experienced him. If God Himself had broken into this world, something fundamental has changed in terms of life, death and history; a new creation has come. This is the unique and decisive testimony of biblical faith.

The day after I posted last week I received my author copies of the new book Armageddon at the Door: An Insider’s Guide to the Book of Revelation. So you should be able to get copies from Amazon or at www.adventistbookcenter.com. This book is the sequel to The Deep Things of God (2004) which lays out an approach to the interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Armageddon carries out that approach for chapters 16 and 17 of Revelation and includes a number of pieces that can be found on the main web site (http://www.thebattleofarmageddon.com/).

Last week I communicated my excitement over the new book by N. T. Wright called Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. I promised to share some thoughts on the resurrection of Christ and its crucial relationship to the New Testament understanding of the end of the world, which includes the Battle of Armageddon.

For Wright the old idea that all religions are basically the same is nonsense. There is a world of difference between a Muslim who believes that a boy killed by Israeli soldiers goes straight to heaven and a Hindu who expects to return to earth after death to work out another stage of his or her destiny. There is a world of difference between an Orthodox Jew who believes in a bodily resurrection of the righteous and a Buddhist who hopes to disappear like a drop of water into an ocean. And for Christian faith, death is not just a transition into a new form of existence, it is an enemy, but an enemy that has been defeated in the resurrection of Christ and will ultimately be abolished forever from the universe. This is substantively different than all other views of death and its relation to human existence.

At this point the skeptic chimes in and says, "So what? Everybody believes what they want to believe. But why should we take the Christian claim any more seriously than any other?" Wright would respond along the lines of Karl Barth and a famous children’s song: "The Bible tells me so." This is of interest to visitors to this web site, because if the Bible is not true then all discussion of a Battle of Armageddon at the end of time (which is based on the Bible’s account of the End in the Book of Revelation) is a waste of time. So we, like the skeptic, are interested in Wright’s answer to the question: Why? Why should we take the Bible seriously?

Wright believes the validity of the Bible stands or falls on the validity of its testimony regarding the resurrection of Jesus. It is not just modern skeptics, but also ancient skeptics who mocked the idea of resurrection (Acts 17:18, 31-32). Resurrection from the dead was no more a common experience for the ancients than it is for scientifically-oriented people today. What caused early Christians to believe something that made no sense at all in everyday experience? Something must have happened. Did the disciples have hallucinations? Were they deliberate deceivers? Did they make up stories based on their Old Testament expectations? Wright rules these options out as not worthy of historical rigor (you’ll have to read the book for the details on that). Instead he argues that the only credible historical approach to the New Testament texts is that the disciples had overwhelming evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead. Wright offers four arguments that he believes would make sense to a historian. I will summarize those arguments for you next week. In my mind they place Christian faith in the resurrection on solid historical ground.

I apologize for the slow pace of blogs the last few months. As an administrator now, my life often carries me along with urgent demands that limit opportunity to read, reflect and write. Nevertheless, I celebrate the publication of my latest book (Everlasting Gospel, Everchanging World). My copies arrived three weeks ago. Unfortunately, although it is listed online by both Amazon and Barnes and Noble, the publisher has not yet arranged to supply books to them! I did find it by entering my name into the search engine at www.adventistbookcenter.com. The book explores what I have learned about sharing faith from my three children (ages 20-26) and son-in-law. They have been an awesome laboratory regarding the impact of "post-moderism" on faith in today’s world. If you have teen or young-adult children or grandchildren, you should find this book helpful.

Ironically, a further new book from me (Armageddon at the Door) is available from Amazon for a special pre-publication price, although I have not yet seen a copy of the book. Revised excerpts from that book are available here by clicking the button "Armageddon Trilogy" on the main web site (http://www.thebattleofarmageddon.com/). My webmaster hopes to have daily devotionals on that site up in a short while.

What triggered this particular blog was a gift. I was handed a book and asked to evaluate it. This happens a lot and I rarely have time to follow through, but this case was different. The book was called Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. It was written by N. T. Wright, perhaps the best-known and most-prolific New Testament scholar in the world today. He is the Anglican Bishop of Durham and has been resident theologian at Westminster Abbey. He is the heir to the legacy of C. S. Lewis, as one might guess from the title of the book. He recently published Simply Christian, a fresh update of the classic Mere Christianity.

Wright’s new book Surprised by Hope should be of great interest to guests of this web site. He offers a fresh and biblical critique of traditional views on the Second Coming (including an offhand comment on Armageddon), human nature and life after death, and the nature of resurrection, judgment, heaven and hell. While I think there are problems here and there at the edges, I found the core of what he wrote profoundly moving and thoroughly biblical.

I particularly gained a fresh perspective on issues related to the resurrection of Jesus, which Wright sees as foundational for the entire Christian world view in general, and its view of the end-time in particular. I plan to share some detail on how he approaches the resurrection of Jesus next week. Stay tuned.

The problem with this text is the context, Isaiah 65:17-25. The whole passage contains one of the most beloved descriptions of what life in the new earth will be like. God will create a new heavens and a new earth (verse 17). There will be no more weeping and crying there (19). God’s people will build houses and live in them, they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit (21). Then there is the glorious climax, "‘The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,’ says the LORD" (25).

What troubles people about this text is the presence of death in paradise (verse 20). God’s people will live long in this new earth, "as the days of a tree" (22), but they will not live forever. How can this be harmonized with the "forever" of other biblical texts (Daniel 7:18; Joel 3:20; Micah 4:5; 1 Thess 4:17; Rev 22:5)? The key to resolving this problem is to explore briefly the historical context in which the prophecy of Isaiah 65 was given.

The central theme of Isaiah through Malachi is the exile of God’s people to Babylon followed by their eventual return to the land promised to Abraham. This "Exile and Return Theme" is dominant in the writing prophets whether they wrote before, during, or after the Exile. They prophesy that the return from Babylon would be accompanied by a three-fold transformation of reality. In Ezekiel 36, for example, God planned to transform human society by restoring Israel to her land and to her witness to the nations (Ezek 36:24,28,33-36, see also Mic 4:1-5, Isa 2:2-5; 11:2-5). He would transform human nature with a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek 36:25-27, see also Jer 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-29; Isa 35:5-6). And He would eventually transform the natural world itself, banishing hunger and violence (Ezek 36:30,35, see also Isa 11:6-9; 35:1,2,7; Ezek 47:1-12).

Unlike the Flood story and the Book of Revelation, where the end of the world means the full, physical destruction of the planet, the End of the prophets would come within history and geography as they understood it. God would intervene mightily within history to transform society, human nature and the natural world. This End is usually described in the context of the exile to and return from Babylon.

There is no question that the view of the End in the Old Testament was a developing one. God always meets people where they are. As they are able, He reveals more and more of His purpose. This principle is clearly stated by Jesus in John 16:12: "I have many things to tell you, but you cannot bear them now."

The danger in this is that later readers would try to universalize these early prophecies and expect every detail to be fulfilled at some time in the future. Instead we should allow later revelation (such as the New Testament) to guide us through the Old Testament material to a clearer picture of the End than was possible earlier. Each stage of Biblical history offers a fresh window into the mind of a God who meets people where they are, yet knows all along where He is going!

Isaiah 65:20 needs to be understood in light of the triple transformation of reality that was promised at the time when God’s people would return from Babylon. This triple transformation would take place within history, within the time, place, and circumstances of the prophetic writers. The "new heavens and new earth" of Isa 65:17, at first glance, sound very much like the book of Revelation, where God destroys the earth before creating it anew. But in Isaiah, it is Jerusalem that is created and the life span is far short of eternity (Isa 65:18-20). "Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed." Isa 65:20, NIV.

As attractive as these numbers sound in our degenerate age, they fall far short of the text "there will be no more death" (Rev 21:4). Isa 65:20 is a "problem text" when read from a New Testament mind-set, but it made perfect sense in the setting of what might have been after the return from Babylonian Exile. Although God would intervene in spectacular fashion, according to the prophets, the fullness of paradise would only be restored a little at a time. In the wake of the Christ event, the book of Revelation portrays a much more radical picture of the End.

I suspect this brief essay may not connect with where most people live today. But it does offer a reason why there are so many challenging statements in the Bible. God meets people where they are. That means a text makes the best sense in the original context. When we move to today, it is easy to get confused by the differences between the Bible's world and our own. The same holds true for what the Bible says about the Battle of Armageddon. Only as we interpret Armageddon texts in their original context can we avoid the kind of wild speculation that is taken as fact in all too many circles.

America’s geographical location is fairly unique. It is sheltered by oceans on the east and on the west. It is so rich in natural resources that, until the last fifty years (the need for foreign oil), America was self-sufficient in most raw materials. Its abundance of rich farmland means that wars need not be fought for basic survival needs such as food. From the mid-nineteenth century on, the only nations that border the United States, Canada and Mexico, have not been hostile and are, in any case, relatively weak militarily. (The recent bout of insecurity regarding the border with Mexico is a relatively new thing for the United States) The last invasion of the "lower 48 states" was during the War of 1812, unless you count the brief foray into New Mexico by Pancho Villa in 1917. America’s borders have not been a major concern for some time until recently.

The United States, therefore, has been blessed with the luxury of living without significant threat to its existence from potentially hostile neighbors. Because of its abundant natural resources, it has not needed to be an aggressor power like Japan, dependent for its survival on imports of food and raw materials. Japan has to be obsessed with the good or bad intentions of its neighbors (including the United States), as there are so many ways that the country’s survival can be threatened from outside. The United States has had few such concerns until very recently.

Compare the United States with China, for example, a country of similar physical size. China has always felt itself under threat from hostile neighbors. There is the great bear of Russia to the north. There are the unpredictable tribes of Central Asia. There is India to the southwest and Vietnam to the south (China has fought brief wars with both since World War II). To the east are Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Wars have been fought with all three in the last hundred years. And then there is the unlimited reach of the United States navy to worry about. So the Chinese must be constantly thinking of their own political and economic self-interest. The very survival of its people demands it.

As the examples of Japan and China suggest, most nations are naturally driven to a political stance of corporate selfishness. When people feel cornered, they defend themselves vigorously. Their full attention is on their own needs and interests. America was no different at the time of its founding. It was threatened by native peoples nearby and by European powers such as Britain, France and, for a time, Spain. But by the mid-nineteenth century, America felt secure from outside threat and began to develop the sense of "manifest destiny," that it had been placed on the earth to be a blessing to the world. It was not to operate from selfish ambition. Freeing the slaves was, to some degree, motivated by the desire to be a nation that was not tainted by the kind of selfish ambition that is so characteristic in traditional geopolitics.

But all of that began to go by the wayside with World War II. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor shattered the sense of security that had once been complete. The Cold War also made it clear that in today’s world, a nation does not have to be near to be threatening. America came to realize that its security and even its survival depended to a large degree on events in the Eurasian land mass (from Great Britain to Singapore). The population and resources of Eurasia are so great that any power that can completely control the Eurasian landmass will rule the world. So the continuing worldwide reach of the American navy and air force is not an accident. Contented isolation is no longer an American option. It is very much in the national interest of the United States to act in ways that keep the nations of Eurasia divided.

This has transformed the United States from a benevolent power that intercedes in world affairs to protect the weak to one that aggressively acts to ensure its own interests. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was perceived as a major turning point in the minds of many. Whatever motives of rescuing the Shiites or the Kurds there might have been, the overwhelming purpose of the invasion was America’s own political self-interest. In the eyes of the world America is now perceived more as a neighborhood bully (dragon?) than as an understanding partner.

And there is no turning back. Al Qaeda and its allies will not go away quietly. The threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is an ongoing threat. In order to ensure its own survival America must act as an empire, intruding into the affairs of its neighbors around the world in the hunt for those who desire to harm her. It does not matter if a Democrat or a Republican is president. The geopolitical realities of today’s world cannot be ignored. The same President Carter who sought to slow down the development of the "dragon," set in motion events that led ultimately to the invasion of Iraq. America now speaks as a dragon and feels fully justified in so doing.

Recently at Loma Linda University, several presenters repeated their contributions at the Questions on Doctrine conference in October (along with a couple of new presenters) in an attempt to share that experience with the Loma Linda audience. We were reminded of the long history of inner-church conflict precipitation by the publication of the book.

It dawned on me during a panel discussion that there are several inner forces at the core of Adventist belief that will inevitably spawn conflict. In other words, the core values of Adventism tend to work against each other somewhat in a dynamic tension that can be invigorating and fruitful, when people are open and affirming, but can be destructive when people focus on one or the other value at the expense of the others.

The first of these values is a strong concern for the "landmarks" of Adventist faith. There is the sense that Adventism has made some significant contributions to the world of faith and no amount of doctrinal development can or should change that. Those who see this value as central to the neglect of the other two will tend to be overcritical of change of any kind.

The second core Adventist value that can create conflict as well as positive change is what I call restorationism. This is the idea that Adventists are called to restore the values of the New Testament (such as Sabbath and sanctuary) that have been lost in the course of Christian history. This value was a major driver of change in the first two generations of Adventist doctrinal development. Related to this is the idea of "present truth," that Adventism at its best will be constantly evolving in its relevance. People who adopt this value as central to the neglect of the other two will tend to promote change at the expense historic Adventist views.

The third core Adventist value is mission, the sense that Adventists have a message for the whole world. But as the Adventist world president said recently, "Theology is being driven by mission." The challenges of reaching out to a world filled with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and many others is causing God-fearing people to reconsider how the gospel can best be expressed in settings other than the Western, Christian world in which Adventism came into being. So mission is becoming an increasingly powerful engine of doctrinal change and re-expression. But the great danger of a theology driven by mission is syncretism, where true faith is diluted by accommodation to world views that may not be compatible with the gospel.

Each of these core values is thoroughly Adventist. Yet the confluence of these core values will inevitably lead to conflict whenever one is privileged over the others. The more we become aware of our own natural biases, the more sympathetic we will be to perspectives that differ from our own natural tendencies.

In looking at myself, I think my theological work has been driven by mission, restorationism and fidelity to the landmarks in that order. All three have been important to me, but I realize that I may not have given the "landmarks" perspective as much weight as mission in the development of my own understanding of theology. But self-awareness here is half the battle. And to the degree that I keep all three values in balance, my own understand of God and faith will be richer and more helpful to others.

So when it comes to discussions such as those surrounding the book Questions on Doctrine, conflict is inevitable due to people’s natural tendency to emphasize one or another of the basic Adventist core values. But when we discover that there is more than one right way to think, we will find ourselves enriched by those we have disagreed with in the past.

I certainly don’t see it that way. Loma Linda University is in an amazing position to change the world. For one thing, it has the only faith-based medical and dental programs in the United States. There are several Jesuit institutions that offer medical programs, but none of them includes religion in the curriculum. They are simply secular programs offered at faith-based universities. Loma Linda is a health-science university that builds faith and wholeness into every single degree and certificate program. In light of recent publicity suggesting that religion can have a positive effect on overall health, Loma Linda is well-positioned to be at the cutting edge of health care in the decades to come.

You may be aware that National Geographic recently identified the Loma Linda community as one of the three longest lived communities on earth, and the only one where longevity is not tied to an isolated and non-duplicatable culture (the other two communities were in isolated parts of Okinawa and Sicily, I believe). The Loma Linda lifestyle may be the world’s best hope for significant advances in longevity in the near future.

In light of the above, the opportunity to be in charge of the religion and humanities curricula of Loma Linda University (Dean of the School of Religion and Division of Humanities) was too good to pass up. I have the opportunity to work with health scientists to integrate the spiritual, emotional and mental sides of the human condition with the latest advances in physical and medical sciences. If the Loma Linda philosophy of wholeness has produced a community that lives ten years longer than the California average, there is something here that is well worth being a part of.

Let me share with you a discussion I chaired between faculty of religion and faculty in the basic sciences at our School of Medicine on January 4, 2008. If there is any aspect of a health science university that could be considered at the opposite end of the spectrum from religion, it would be the basic sciences, which are completely dependant on hard data and careful empirical research. What value could religion classes possibly have to a PhD program in the basic sciences?

We asked the professors in the basic sciences to share the goals and objectives of the program and how religion could contribute to the lives of aspiring scientists. Here are some of the things we came up with:

1) Help students understand that faith is not incompatible with the production of new knowledge. Science is not of dubious usefulness for faith. Rather, faith needs to understand. Religion is worthy of the same kind of intellectual rigor that we expect from scientists. And science can also be engaged in from the standpoint of service to God. One of the things Loma Linda University can contribute to the world is the concept of faith-based and faith-motivated science, something happening in no other educational institution. Is the idea of a faith-based equivalent to Stanford or MIT too big a stretch? I think not. Is the world today ready for such an institution? I think so.

2) Scientists need to know that the Bible is worthy of serious scientific study. Religion teachers can help them learn healthy ways to read texts and common fallacies about the Bible and its interpretation to avoid.

3) Religion classes in a science curriculum can create a safe and respectful environment where students can sort out their own convictions about faith and knowledge. Religion can help them discover the spiritual significance of their lives and develop a sense of God’s purpose in their scientific endeavors. Not all students come to class as spiritual people, but they are all trying to figure out the meaning of their lives.

4) Explore whether the study of science inevitably leads to a loss of faith. And if faith is lost what kind of faith is lost? Can such an occurrence be a blessing at times?

Don’t you wish you could have been listening in on the discussion that produced ideas like that? I was pumped to be part of such a fruitful and life-changing discussion, with many more to come.

So to my two or three fans out there, don’t cry for me. I am having the time of my life. And I promise you I won’t neglect the research and publishing agenda I have pursued for the last twenty years, and that has led to this web site. Stay tuned for some fresh studies on the Battle of Armageddon in the next month or two.