XPost: alt.christnet.bible-study, msn.forums.religion.biblestudy, alt.christnet.christianlife
A Christian Physicist Examines the Age of
the Earth
by Steven Ball, Ph.D.
from
https://www.letu.edu/academics/arts-and-sciences/files/age-of-earth.pdf
September 2003
Introduction
Since you’ve picked up this booklet to at least skim it, obviously this subject is one of interest to
you. I hope this is an issue you are willing to reason together with me,
rather than simply
checking to see if it agrees with your present view. If the former is
true, then read on and I
believe you’ll find it interesting and worthwhile. I’m trusting that no
one will put confidence in
my conclusions concerning the age of the Earth simply because I claim to
be a committed
Christian or because of the Ph.D. in physics. Neither of these titles
gives me enough authority to
tell people what to believe. Rather I’m trusting that you are ready to
reason with me, exercising
as much skepticism as you like, but with just enough willingness to let
the evidence persuade
you of the truth. If not, I hope you’ll at least read the first chapter.
That doesn’t address the age
of the Earth, but rather why there is such a controversy over it among Christians.
Perhaps you feel this is a closed issue, based upon what the Bible says,
and there is no need to
examine it further. Or tragically, perhaps you feel a distaste for
Christianity in general because it
appears to require rejecting science altogether. For both individuals I
have a message of
encouragement. I have discovered a beautiful fit between good science
and solid faith in Christ
and the Bible. Now I feel compelled to offer my insights on this issue
to others because of what
I see as an unhealthy situation presently surrounding it. And not just
to be heard, because I
promised myself I wouldn’t waste good paper unless I had something
worthwhile to put on it.
Although this is directed primarily to scientific laymen, I welcome
scientists to examine this as
well. From my experience, most scientists have not given much thought to
the scope of these
issues. We tend to be a little too specialized these days.
In case you are insisting on a quick and easy answer, then I won’t beat around the bush
concerning my conclusions. As a Christian physicist, I’ve been blessed
with the freedom and
opportunity to examine the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth
in some detail, and have
concluded that it emphatically points to an age of around 4.6 billion
years. I’m well aware of the
Biblical account of creation, and I can assure you that I strongly
believe it to be true. As a
Christian educator, I’ve had the opportunity to interact with Christian
young people enough to
know that this is an emotionally charged issue that is viewed to be high
stakes with respect to the
Christian faith. It is my intent to help people sort through this issue
both with the mind and with
the heart. Indeed, the age of the Earth may be the catchy title of this
book, but the real issue is
the role of science in influencing our faith, a nonscientific realm. It
is my firm belief that those
who are willing to go with me on this journey will come through it with
their faith in the validity
of God’s Word, the Bible, strengthened, and with a greater respect for
the testimony of the
physical universe we live in.
Chapter 1
The Root of the Problem
On the first day of science class at a private Christian university, the
wary freshman student is
experiencing anxiety. Although the university is billed to be
doctrinally sound, thoroughly
evangelical, and unashamedly Christian, he is not sure how the science professors will stand on
an issue that the student has determined to be an important litmus test
of the faith. Anxiety is
only heightened by the fact that the professor starts out class with a
brief devotion, since this
could be merely a deceptive appearance of faith, perhaps a faith badly
marred by false doctrine.
However the devotion doesn’t give a straightforward answer to his
question. The Scripture text
is from Psalm 19 with emphasis on the first verse, “The heavens are
declaring the glory of God;
and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands” [1]. Some comments
are made to the
effect that the physical universe itself is providing us evidence of
God’s design, if we are willing
to pay heed. But it would be much simpler if the professor simply came
out and stated his
position on this most important issue. Then the student could at least
be more at ease, and know
whether this professor is “safe” or not, indeed whether he can be
trusted or perhaps he needs a
good dose of apologetics to reveal the error of his way.
This scenario occurs regularly in my experience because I am blessed to
be a professor of
physics at a distinctively Christian university and have taught in such
an environment for nearly
10 years. No, I don’t always start the school year off with a devotional
from Psalm 19; however
I do love the Psalms and frequently draw devotional material from them.
And just as the
physical universe seems to be sharing consistent messages with us from
many different
directions, the Bible also provides us consistent messages from its 66
books. But the tension of
students waiting to find out where I stand with respect to the line
drawn in the sand concerning
the age of the universe is a very present one.
“Creation Science”
This line in the sand can be easily understood from what has happened in
many of the
mainstream conservative evangelical churches of North America over the
last few decades.
What has become commonplace is the acceptance of “Creation Science” as
the only acceptable
approach to how science and the Bible should relate. In a nutshell, the
premise of Creation
Science is that the Bible gives us answers to many questions also
addressed by science. The
Bible, which is held to be the inerrant, infallible Word of God, cannot
be wrong. Therefore,
when the Bible and science disagree (or appear to disagree), the latter
mu must be wrong. There is
no room for questioning this premise. You must simply choose which side
of line you stand on,
the Bible or science.
Ironically, Creation Science actually goes one step further, and seeks scientific support for the
perceived Biblical answers. All scientific evidence that appears to
disagree with the Bible must
be somehow in error (e.g. Henry Morris’ analysis of Sue, the most
complete Tyrannosaurus
skeleton yet unearthed [2]), since the Bible has already given us the
answer. Concerning the age
of the Earth, the Bible’s genealogical records combined with the Genesis
1 account of creation
are used to estimate an age for the Earth and universe of about 6000
years, with a bit of
uncertainty on the completeness of the genealogical records, allowing
for a few thousand years
more. This young age is repeatedly confirmed by numerous studies done by proponents of
4
Creation Science. Yet the vast majority of the scientific community
claims there is abundant
scientific evidence that points to an age of 4.6 billion years for the
Earth and about 14 billion
years for the entire universe. Who is right?
No amount of semantics can give validity to both claims. Interestingly
enough, attempts have
been made. One suggestion uses Einstein’s theory of relativity, in which
time measurements are
relative to the observer’s reference frame to propose that both a 6000
year old Earth and a 4.6
billion year old Earth are possible [3]. However, extremely different
reference frames are
required, one of which will be moving at nearly the speed of light
relative to the Earth. In a
reference frame moving in a very rapid round trip away from and back to
Earth, one can measure
a very short time elapsed, while eons have passed by on Earth. But only
in the reference frame
of the Earth does one measure a meaningful age for the Earth. And there
is no ambiguity in the
measurement of this time. Another attempt to include both young and old
ages involves
exaggerating the scientific uncertainties to the point that neither can
be excluded [4]. This
grossly misrepresents the scientific evidence, which has provided us
abundant and sufficiently
accurate indicators of the Earth’s age to settle the question. The cold
hard conclusion is that
someone must be wrong here.
Many Christians are afraid to even suggest that the 6000 year age could
be wrong, since that
might be suggesting the Bible is wrong. But then again, a massive
conspiracy of manufactured
false evidence from many fields of scientific research for an older
Earth and universe is a bit
farfetched even for conspiracy fans. We will look into many of these
evidences in the coming
chapter. While we are at it, we should also consider evidences put forth
by proponents of
Creation Science favoring a young Earth, and evaluate their merits. Are
they the lone
proponents of truth in the midst of a perverted world of science? Or are
there problems with
their proposed evidences? The following chapter examines some of these.
Origins of the Controversy: Darwinism
But before we begin, there is a need to take a step back and get a
broader view of the origins of
this controversy. Although the age of the Earth is a topic I am more
qualified to discuss than the
following one, it is essential to understand what has influenced the emotionally charged climate
in the first place. Fortunately, there is little disagreement concerning
this root cause. All of it
leads back to the issue of Darwinism. For nearly 150 years debates
concerning the meaning and
consequences of the theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin
have continued in
various circles, particularly in the church. Darwinism is a term
representing the theory of
evolution in combination with particular meaning and consequences
attached to it. There are
many good resources documenting the history and development of Darwinism
and its opponents
[5,6]. But to summarize, it was the meaning and consequences given to
the theory of evolution,
which forced its rejection in whole by much of the Christian church.
Indeed, even the verb evolve has often taken on unfounded meaning beyond
its simple definition
“to change with time”. Within the scientific community, the word evolve
is used without fear of
conveying anything more than this. However the scientific layman usually attaches more
meaning to it, conveying images of Darwin’s theory and certain
philosophical perspectives,
particularly “philosophical naturalism”, a presupposition that all
physical phenomena must have
explanations that are non-supernatural ones. Some go a bit further and
suggest that there is
nothing in the universe other than what can be physically observed
and measured, thus
5
eliminating the supernatural from the outset. Yet this violates the sensibilities of many people,
since consciousness, freewill, morality, and many other realities defy scientific understanding.
However, the theory of evolution itself is presented primarily as a
scientific study in Darwin’s
“Origin of the Species” [7]. It simply proposes that all of the species
of life present in the world
today came into existence through slow, gradual changes in its ancestors
going all the way back
to ancestors common to all species today. Central to the theory is the
proposal that these changes
are brought about by physical processes at work in the environment,
which we can observe
today. The stirring effect of this theory is not what it says about God,
but rather the absence of
any statement of God’s role. This made Darwin’s theory immediately the subject of controversy
in 19th century England, where all of the individual species of life
were attributed to separate acts
of creation. The controversy would soon spread to America and other
English speaking
countries.
Why the controversy? Genesis describes the creation of the world with
special emphasis on the
creation of mankind. Man is described by Genesis 1 as being “created in
the image of God”, a
rather profound way of stating something about the kinship man was
intended to have with God
above and beyond that of any other species of life on Earth. We shall
return to this reference in
the last chapter. Because Darwin’s theory makes no distinction between
man and other life on
Earth, it was met with resistance from the very start. Although some
Christians today accept
both the validity of the Bible and of evolutionary theory as proposed by Darwin, early
proponents of evolutionary theory recognized an irreconcilable problem.
. Either man is
fundamentally different from other life forms or he is not.
Varying Responses: Science and the Scriptures
An apparent way out of this dilemma is to suggest that man is different
in that he has a spirit,
which is eternal, while having a physical body, which is very much in
the likeness of other life
forms. The former actually agrees with how God is described in the
Bible, One who is Spirit
rather than flesh and blood (John 4:24). So then can man be created in
the image of God and
have a common ancestry with other life forms? Here the Bible has
something more to say. In
Genesis 2:7 man is depicted as having been formed from the dust of the
ground, a special act of
creation. Beyond any doubt is that God’s direct intervention in creation
is the clear message
given by Genesis. How can God be directly intervening in creation while
man’s existence is
attributable to physical processes at work? This is a question difficult
to answer. It is much
easier for one who believes in a Creator to reject any role that science
might have in explaining
origins, whether it be origins of the universe, of the Earth, of life,
or of mankind.
Here we have the reason for such a varied response by the Christian
community to the threat of
Darwinism. The response is heavily influenced by how one views the
relationship of science to
the Scriptures. Some view science as merely a human construct, and
therefore when it appears to
disagree with the Bible, it must be that science is wrong; for only the
Bible is held to be the lone
source of truth as revealed by God to man. Others recognize that science
is the pursuit of
knowledge based on discovering the laws and principles governing our
universe, of which God
Himself is the author. So it follows that science and the Bible should
be giving us consistent
messages by virtue of the same authorship. When they appear to conflict,
it could be a problem
in our understanding of science or of the Scriptures.
Yet even of those who have a healthy respect for the role of science,
there are differing responses
to Darwinism. One recent movement attempts to show from the scientific
evidence that all
species of life were created via supernatural intervention, leaving us
complex designs of whose
origins science cannot provide an adequate explanation. This is the “intelligent design”
movement, prime examples of which are provided by Michael Behe in his
book, “Darwin’s
Blackbox” [8]. Highlighted is the absence of any plausible explanations
for the evolution of
“irreducibly complex” biological systems, particularly from a
biochemical perspective.
Naturalistic explanations are ruled out as inadequate to explain the
complex machinery of the
biochemical realm, something many advocates of evolutionary theory have
been treating too
simplistically. A very convincing and respectable case is made. But this movement has been
criticized for relegating the unexplainable to a Designer, where the
lack of scientific explanations
becomes its source of support. For some scientists, this is too
reminiscent of the “God of the
gaps” approach, where the gaps in our understanding of origins are
attributed to the hand of God.
The premise becomes a losing one if plausible explanations are found.
But is it really necessary
to rule out naturalistic explanations? In other words, can science speak concerning a Designer on
the basis of what can be understood scientifically? I believe so.
Unclear Evidence for Evolution
------------ skip a bunch
Chapter 4
Making Sense of it All
Allowing the evidence to speak for itself, we find the scientific
evidence clearly favors an older
Earth, approximately 4.6 billion years old. What are we to make of this?
Will accepting the
antiquity of the Earth invalidate the Christian faith? That is a bold
claim being made by some.
But that doesn’t actually stand to reason or to careful examination of
the Scriptures. Once again,
as I risked discussing issues in chapter 1 that are not my areas of
expertise, I am now willing to
risk discussing how the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth
relates to the Christian faith
and the Bible. If people are willing to accept the scientific evidence,
a common difficulty is then
relating it to the claims of the Bible. I believe there are several
important points to consider that
are frequently overlooked in well-intentioned efforts to apply the Bible
to questions such as the
age of the Earth.
The Genesis Creation “Days”
First of all, contrary to the what is commonly held not only by young
Earth proponents but also
by many other people familiar with the Bible, extracting an age of the
Earth from the Bible is not
possible without assumptions and interpretations, some being quite questionable. Examine
Genesis 1 with me. Certainly a straightforward reading of Genesis 1
reveals the central theme of
God creating order from the chaos. Creation is described as having taken
place during six days,
during which different aspects of God’s creative works are described.
The climax of the story is
the creation of man himself in the image of God. There are several
unmistakable messages given
in the account. There is a beginning to the universe and God is the
cause of it. The incredible
order we see in the universe is attributed to God’s divine handiwork. Creation represents
something very good and beautiful. Finally, man was created to have a
special relationship with
God. These messages do not conflict with the scientific evidence.
Rather, the scientific
evidence is supporting such an account, as described briefly in chapter 2.
But why is the creation account described as having taken place in six
days, each of which is
described by the words “and there was evening, and there was morning,”
the first (second, third,
etc.) day? We could naturally assume that these days refer to 24-hour
days. This would
definitely imply a young Earth. But there are numerous problems with
this assumption. The
first problem is that a second account of creation is given in the
following chapter that describes
creation as having taken place in one day. It begins with Genesis 2:4,
which states “This is the
account of the heavens and the earth when they weere created, in the day
that the Lord God made
the earth and heaven”. How can both accounts be true? The problem is
resolved by looking at
the use of the word day in Hebrew, pronounced “yom”. In some scriptural uses it clearly
represents a 24-hour day, whereas in many other scriptural references it clearly represents
unspecified or long time periods. This alone should force us to use
caution when considering the
time period in which creation took place.
A defense of interpreting the Genesis 1 days as 24-hour days, while
keeping a figurative
interpretation of the day used in Genesis 2:4, involves pointing out the
manner in which the word
is used. It is claimed that wherever this word is used with an ordinal adjective (first, second, etc)
a 24-hour day is intended [39]. Since many Hebrew scholars have
concurred with this, we
should not lightly dismiss this. But let us think about it for a moment.
The seven-day week is a
23
peculiar period of time, one not determined by astronomical means such
as are the day (one
Earth rotation), the month (one lunar cycle), and the year (one Earth revolution). The Genesis 1
creation account attributes the origin of the week to the precedent set
by God himself with a
cycle of six days of work, followed by one day of rest. This was given
to mankind as a pattern to
be followed. Beyond Genesis 1, all of the other uses of day with an
ordinal adjective involve
human activity. Thus it is not surprising that a 24-hour day is
consistently implied. But should
we use this to interpret the activity of God in Genesis 1, if humans do
not appear until the sixth
day? The uniqueness of the creation account makes this problematic. It
should also force us to
use caution in our interpretation of the word “day” in Genesis 1, as
many Hebrew scholars have
stressed [40, 41, 42].
Meaning Found in the Context of Creation
Thus exercising some caution, it may not be clear what precise time
period is given by the
creation account of Genesis 1. But that does not necessarily imply that
the described days have
no distinct meaning. There are additional considerations that actually
favor an interpretation of
these days different from 24-hour periods. Hebrew scholar Gerald
Schroeder discusses the
peculiar reference to each day: “and there was evening, and there was morning”. If a 24-hour
day was the intended meaning, why are the days described in such
fashion? True, the Hebrew
day is demarcated from sundown to sundown. However, the Genesis 1 days
contrast evening
and morning. Schroeder suggests that the meaning goes with the context
of Genesis 1, namely,
that God is transforming the chaos into order. Genesis 1, verse 2
describes the early Earth as
“formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep”. Then God begins a
remarkable sequence of creating order. Three days of separations are
described (light from
darkness, waters above from the waters below, and dry land from the
waters below). Then God
begins to populate the Earth with life. Since God is transforming the
chaos into order, it is quite
appropriate that each act be likened to the darkness of evening being transformed into the light of
morning. Even the root meanings of the Hebrew words for evening, “erev”, and morning,
“boker”, correspond to “disorderly” and “orderly” respectively [3, p
97]. This description is a
beautiful illustration that any reader can relate to. Thus it appears
that there really is no clear
message of a precise time frame given by the “days” of Genesis 1. That simply wasn’t one of the
important messages being conveyed by the creation account.
You may wonder why the account is given sequentially, if a time frame is
not being conveyed.
There are some good reasons for this. The first three days appear to be
rather distinct from the
second three days. A theme of acts of separation takes place during the
first three days, in which
God is preparing the abodes of the things He plans to populate the
abodes with. Then the second
three days describe clearly what God places in each abode. This pattern
would have been an
easy one to remember in a day when oral traditions were much more common
than written ones
[43]. Also, the very fact that creation is described sequentially gives
support to the premise that
God used a process in preparing the Earth as a perfect abode for humans,
since all of creation did
not take place simultaneously. Although God is speaking all things into existence, the text does
not describe what the process is. Thus we should not rule out natural
processes acting over long
time periods. Accepting natural processes as the means God used to
accomplish creation does
not question whether God could have created it all instantaneously or
not. The sequential
account shows us He clearly chose not to. For many individuals, it is
even more awesome to
consider how God could have used a vast period of preparation, involving
so many different
factors to work together just rig just right, just for man to become the
climax of all creation. As the
24
psalmist concluded, the vastness of our universe inspires an awesome
sense of humility,
whereupon accepting the creation account of Genesis inspires a
tremendous sense of the value of
human life (Psalm 8).
God’s Time
To claim that Scripture is being re-interpreted to fit the latest
results of science is not correct.
Church fathers, including Augustine, did not interpret the creation days
as 24-hour days [44].
Augustine noted that the seventh day of creation is not described in the
manner “and there was
evening, and there was morning”, the seventh day. The Genesis account
simply indicates that
God “rested on the seventh day from all His work which he had done”. The conclusion reached
by Augustine is that the day of rest continues to the present, a
conclusion also reached by many
recent Hebrew scholars [40,41]. Although Augustine did not have the
benefit of modern science
to base his judgments on, he did appeal to reason in interpreting this
account, something we
should all do. In retrospect, from a modern scientific viewpoint, this conclusion appears to be
confirmed, since we do not see any new acts of creation taking place,
such as new species of life
arising. We are witnessing only the extinction of many species in
increasingly rapid fashion.
God appears to be resting from his creative work.
In short, it doesn’t appear that the Bible was intended to convey the
age of the Earth in the
creation account. In fact, the Bible seems to downplay the significance
of time concerning the
works of the Lord. Passages such as Psalm 90:4 “For a thousand years in
thy sight are like
yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night”, and II Peter
3:8 indicate that God’s time
frame may well be different from ours. And we note that He was the only
one present during all
of creation. Other writers have attempted to give some details
concerning how the Genesis 1
days correspond to a history provided by a modern scientific account of
the Earth and universe
[27,45]. However interesting this might be, this very quickly requires
some speculative
measures that are difficult to firmly establish. Even with modern
science it remains difficult to
establish the time frame of the Genesis 1 days.
The Purpose of Scripture
While a precise time frame for creation may not be a clear message given
by the Bible, there are
many important ones that are. What is clear is that creation is the
result of God’s purpose and
primary role. The vast order we find in the universe is attributed to
God’s careful handiwork.
His meticulous care for detail in designing our universe is only
becoming clearer with the
increase in scientific evidence, as we discussed in the second chapter.
Indeed, the more we learn
of our universe, the more remarkably designed it appears to be. Proverbs 8:22-31 describes the
creation events from the perspective of personified “wisdom”, since the wonders of creation
exhibit the unfathomable wisdom of our Creator. It seems reasonable to
use the testimony of
creation itself to learn about its age age, if indeed that interests
us. Expecting Scripture to give us an
answer to this question is similar to asking Scripture to tell us the
size of the visible universe, a
question most people have no qualms about relegating to modern science, although they are
closely related as we have seen. Although the Bible gives us truth,
there are many questions it
apparently does not give us the answers to. If it did, the important
messages it does give would
be inundated by unimportant ones. Concerning the scriptural account of creation, theologian
Francis Schaeffer wrote:
25
We are considering here matters which lie far in the past and concern
cosmic events.
That raises a question: Can we really talk in any meaningful sense at
all about them?
It is helpful, first, to distinguish between true communication and
exhaustive
communication. What we claim as Christians is that, when all of the
facts are taken
into consideration, the Bible gives us true knowledge although not
exhaustive
knowledge…. A Christian holding the strongest possible view of
inspiration still
does not claim exhaustive knowledge at any point. The Bible is a most
efficient
book. We must remember its purpose: It is God’s message to fallen men.
[42, p. 35]
Something that may still be troubling you is the question of when to
interpret something literally
or figuratively. At the risk of delving too far into an area that I am
not an expert in, I will
nevertheless make a suggestion for us to consider. In interpreting the
days described in Genesis
1, is it “safer” just to accept the most literal interpretation? To
answer this question, consider
another expression that must be interpreted from the creation account.
Three times in Genesis 1:26-27 it mentions that God made man in His own
image. Yet in John 4:24, Jesus mentions that
“God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” Clearly then, we
must understand that being created in the image of God means that man
was created with a spirit,
in God’s likeness. Insisting that man was created to physically “look” like God fails to
accurately convey who God is. We must accept that the language being
used in Genesis 1 is
being used figuratively, lest we misunderstand it altogether. So it
isn’t always “safer” to accept a
literal interpretation, if we are concerned with finding a correct one. Similarly, the figurative
interpretation of the Genesis 1 days also makes sense, since it fits
with the context of what is
taking place in creation. Indeed, it has been estimated that over 150 figurative expressions are
used in the first 11 chapters of Genesis [41, p. 88].
Understanding Scripture
A wrong understanding of God’s Word can sometimes lead to tragic consequences. In Luke 4,
we find that the people among whom Jesus grew up could not accept him as
the Messiah. When
asked to read the Scriptures, he read from Isaiah 61, “The Spirit of the
Lord God is upon me,
because He anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor”. Upon
completing the reading Jesus
proclaimed to them “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing”, whereupon the
Jews were filled with consternation, since they only recognized him as “Joseph’s son”. Instead
of receiving the long awaited Messiah, they wanted to cast him off a
cliff. Did they not know the
Scriptures? Yes, they knew them well; the Scriptures were read every
Sabbath Day in the
synagogues. Did they not believe the Scriptures? Yes, they even had a
special place reserved
for the Messiah when He should come. Their understanding of Scripture
did not permit them to
consider that someone growing up in their midst could be the promised
Messiah. Apparently,
the ministry of John the Baptist had not prepared their hearts and minds
to receive Him. They
failed to learn from the miracles of Christ and they missed the main
message. So we see that a
prepared heart and an open mind to consider the evidence before us are essential.
Christians today have a much greater advantage in understanding the
Scriptures, because Jesus
sent the Holy Spirit to be our Helper in all matters concerning the
faith. In John 16:13 Jesus said
to his disciples “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide
you into all the truth...”.
We need not wrestle with these issues hopelessly by ourselves. God
Himself can give us a peace
and assurance that we are on the right track, or some gentle nudges that
we have strayed from the
truth. I urge all Christians to conssider the issue of the age of the
Earth prayerfully. I’ve merely
26
given you some input from science and the Scriptures, to encourage
reason in your
considerations. A Christian needs to ask God for guidance on all issues
that are considered
important to the faith. Many Christians have concluded as I have, that
the age of the Earth is not
an important issue of the Christian faith, since the Bible places no
importance on it. The prayer
that Jesus lifted up to the Father in John 17 stressed the unity that
Christ so much wanted for his
followers, a unity not to be broken by minor doctrinal issues of the faith.
Accepting the Evidence
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)