The Week That Was

Today in Maple Ridge with a rare snowfall.

David Pailin at Manchester stated when I returned in a new year: (Paraphrased) 'I thought you would have been under snow in Canada'. Ah, the importance of doing research...;)

1. Photos Again

On my other blog, one post ago I stated the following in main body: 

Satire And Theology 

'In regard to my other, main blog. Had a complaint via email, I think based on Stat Counter, although it could be redirected, from Boulder, Colorado. Often times Site Meter will state nothing for location, or one location and Stat Counter another. Sometimes they agree. Stat Counter has more locations listed, but I think Site Meter is probably more accurate, based on when I think I know the person, more often. A photographer was 'appalled' that I used some of his photos that he claims were undocumented. They were among my oldest photos from my desktop photos from several computers ago. He claimed I 'stole'. I deleted them from my photos and my posts at once. I explained I did not steal as I documented as from Google Images and his name was on them. That kind of documentation is common ethical practice today. Even so, I do not want to offend anyway or damage rights, so I will likely post shared Facebook and Google+ photos from now on and photos from share sites. Trekearth seems ambiguous as I saw no warning on their site having looked more than once and yet Wikipedia states trekearth photos are not meant to be shared for sites which seems strange. Their site exists to share photos...' 

End citation from Satire And Theology

Further, I have worked through, mainly on the other blog, but both blogs, eliminating many 'Google Images'. Especially on more relatively popular posts. 

Chucky and Bobby were visiting Saturday night and discussing this issue, Chucky, a software tester was ethically appalled by all the parsing that can take place on the web in regard to copyright and noted that basically 'everyone breaks the law' with the level of lack of enforcement of supposed or actual copyright laws and the lack of ethical clarity provided.

Bobby reasoned I should make no changes on my blogs in regard to images at all. 

I have, however, decided at a more conservative approach, attempting a high level of ethics.

I apologize for changes in material in some cases if it was appreciated by readers, but I am replacing any deleted images with equal quality material where possible.

No, I do not plan on using my own amateur photos most of the time, as noted above there are other sources.

Blackburn's noting of 'kinds of problems encountered' in regard to ethics (Blackburn 1996: 126),  is a philosophical reminder that although certainly there can be ethical and moral right and wrong (especially from a Christian, Biblical worldview) there are in this realm and world, grey/gray areas in ethics.

I reason this the case with web-based copyright.

2. Crazy?

A friend explained to me that a mutual friend thought I was crazy, or like, to have public blogs.

The concern, and a quite reasonable, justifiable one, that I could or would be damaging my career in regard to being hired by an academic institution, church or ministry.

I can state from interaction that a President or like of a major Christian academic institution told me by email that although they did not have work for me, he respected my significant blogging ministry.

A Pastoral leader at one of the churches I am now attending stated I demonstrated significant ministry skill and theological skill with my blogs.

I have had Christian ministers with Doctorates and Master's degrees and persons in para-church ministry state my blogs have significant value.

I have been asked, based on my Blogging, to assist a para-church ministry with their blog.

I have advised.

I have never received a negative recommendation from a significant person in Christian ministry to close my blogs down or to make significant changes.

I use my blogs as ministry and teaching, as a way of advancing my abilities in Theology, Philosophy and Biblical Studies. and as an online social outlet.

The level of work is generally difficult, with both blogs, although at times in different ways.

Satire and humour is used, in part to demonstrate to observers that I have everyday relatability.

The humour is family-orientated as much as possible.

However, on both blogs at times I reason it needed to deal with some more serious darker issues.

To be an anonymous Blogger, as I was when I began is not ethically wrong as such, but it lacks a certain degree of credibility because it is as if one is not willing to stand behind his/her work publicly. Readers can also ponder on how trustworthy anonymous writers are. I have read this on professional sites and it is not just my opinion.

As I have noted, I revise often and am learning. But ministry has a price and is challenging. I realize one can take public criticism if he/she is not anonymous. I also realize that many persons have non-ministry main employment and do not wish employers to read related controversial online material.

However, that means Blogs should be researched, accurate, careful and respectful in what is written.

I follow these.

I am professional, restrained and revise.

I conclude, I am still ethically and pragmatically correct to be publicly blogging.

3. Team Canada

Facebook: February 23, 2014

Canada wins its second straight Olympic Gold medal in men's ice hockey. The third win in five Olympic tournaments since the tournament featured National Hockey League, best versus best players. The Czech Republic and Sweden winning the other two Olympic competitions. Many in the Canadian professional hockey media are stating, and with good reason, as the 2014 Olympic Champions were undefeated and only gave up three goals in six games, that this is the best Team Canada ever. 

My philosophical concern of the Canadian professional hockey media is simply comparing the Olympic teams only, in the best Team Canada discussion.

There have been several other best versus best competitions, historically:

There is the Summit Series of 1972, which featured Canada versus the Soviet Union. Won by Canada. This team is sometimes mentioned, being the most famous.

There are Canada Cups in 1976, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1991. Canada winning all but the 1981 series, won by the Soviet Union.

The Canada Cup became the World Cup, won by the United States in 1996 and Canada in 2004.

At the time, I remember some stating that the 2004 Team Canada team was the best ever. That team also going undefeated.

But this best verses best tournament seems largely unmentioned. I did not hear or read anything about it in regard to comparisons from the three major Canadian networks following Olympic hockey.

I am not opining at all, in regard to which team may be better the 2014 Olympic team or the 2004 World Cup team.

The 1991 team was undefeated but did not win every game.

The 1976 and 1987 Canada Cup teams were perhaps, according to experts, the two most talent teams, although not undefeated.

My conclusion is that often more research should be done by Canadian professional hockey broadcasters, and writers before opining on issues on best team, or greatest team.

Lack of research and related reflection also being a philosophical and theological problem in forming reasonable, educated opinions is other areas of life as well, including academic.

To digress, therefore by National Hockey League reasoning, with the tremendous success financially of the seven Canadian based clubs in comparison to the average American based team, and the success and support for the National Team, Team Canada; the League may according to most media reports place the next franchise through expansion or relocation in...

Seattle.

And according to some reports perhaps Las Vegas, building a new NHL style arena, is now ahead of Quebec City and their new NHL style arena under construction in be awarded a franchise after Seattle.

As noted previously on my blogs, I see the National Hockey League's philosophical obsession, being a primarily United States based League, as similar to a religious type devotion to a concept, regardless of significant evidence.

The owners and commissioner's office want more teams in the United States to grow the game and gain more new fans.

Whereas I reason by evidence and reason, more new supporters of clubs would be created in areas where there is already a significant hockey culture in place and hockey not being behind other sports in popularity as it is in the United States.

Therefore new clubs in Canada would in general create a larger overall fan base and more revenue and franchise value than would more new teams in America,.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

More On James 2 (Brief)

Lake Garda-Google+

An idea raised to me at church Wednesday night in a discussion in regard to various Reformed and Arminian interpretations.

James 2:14-17

English Standard Version

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Demons can have dead faith and are not believers in trusting, as in faith in God. In other words they do not simply have no faith, but have dead faith having previously believed was the presumption..

However:

Reasonable and good point.

This makes it possible dead faith is equal to no faith.

But, theologically demons/satanic beings are not salvageable, and will not be saved.

Therefore no faith/dead faith is not something that God will preach on or attempt to change in regard to fallen angels/demons.

However, in a person, or one in Christ, dead faith could be hypothetically at least, revitalized in the Holy Spirit in salvation.

In most of a discussion I reaffirmed my views and was confident in them and was probably influential, but I reason I needed to examine James 2 again.

I affirm often in person and online my work is somewhat in transition and I often revise. Although I hold to the Biblical orthodox essentials.

In regard to James 2

Grace To You and John MacArthur

Sermon

Cited

"As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." The theme of this very important passage then is "dead faith."

Cited

And as I suggested to you last time, the distinguishing mark of dead faith is the absence of righteous deeds. It reflects a person who believes in the facts of God's truth but feels no particular compulsion to behave in a righteous manner and produces no works of true goodness. And this is of great concern to James. In fact, it's of great concern to God and therefore a great concern to us.'

Cited

'And so, we see then that James is giving us all through his epistle and there are others, tests of a living faith. And in the midst of it, in chapter 2, he points out the character of a dead faith. That is a faith that says all the right things and affirms to believe all the right things but manifests no transformed life.'

Cited

There is a consequence to true belief. It isn't just only believe.'

Cited

'Let's look, then, at the character of dead faith, and then the comparison, the character of living faith in these verses. Three things mark out non-saving dead faith, three things. Number one, empty confession...empty confession, verse 14; "What does it profit, or what good is it, or of what benefit, what gain, my brethren," speaking of his Jewish brethren and of those who were brethren at least in the visible church on the outside, "What does it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has faith and does not have works? Can that kind of faith--parenthesis-- save him?" Now this person claims to have faith in God, claims to be a believer, claims to be in right relationship to God. Perhaps even affirms believing in Jesus Christ. Back in chapter 2, verse 1, "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory with respect of persons?" In other words, don't have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that manifests itself this way. So we could assume that the faith here in verse 14 is a faith that would embrace Christ. They believed that Jesus was God, the Messiah. Perhaps they believed, of course, that He died and rose again. All of those facts were in the right perspective. But what good is it, what profit is it, of what use is it to make a claim that you believe that, to say you have faith if you have nothing to evidence it?

End citation

Interesting.

'They believed that Jesus was God, the Messiah. Perhaps they believed, of course, that He died and rose again. All of those facts were in the right perspective.'

This is curious, however, it has been stated by some in the Reform camp that human beings do not have the ability to simply intellectually believe in the gospel, as do demonic beings.

Demonic beings and obedient angels having had direct access to the spiritual realm; not the case for humanity.

In other words, persons outside of the Holy Spirit, could not have a 'right perspective'. The idea being non-believers do not believe the gospel on any true significant basis. Someone that truly believed would have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. What is commonly reasoned to be intellectual belief only, according to this view, is rather intellectual consideration that the gospel sounds like it could be true.

This may be church attenders that are in a sense, trying the gospel.

Those with a right perspective, therefore it could be reasoned would need to be in Christ, although may not be producing good works.

I remember that a Trinity Western University and Reformed Baptist professor of mine was part of a ministry group with like views. Of course, I am providing interpretation of those views.

I am not dogmatic either for or against, on this concept, but have come across it as noted.

Cited

For the sake of argument, James says a man comes along and makes the claim. He confesses to believe the truth of salvation, present tense. He is constantly saying he has faith. He keeps on making that claim and maybe he even identifies outwardly with the visible church. But what good is such a continual habitual claim to faith if he doesn't have works? And here the works referred to are good works, righteous deeds. If these are not the evidence in his life then where is the salvation.

The point being, you cannot have a true salvation without evidence. You cannot have a genuine conversion without a product. I mean, there has to be a transformation. If before my redemption I live for the flesh and against God and if redemption is transformation then at least has to be a reversal of that so that I now long to live for God and to do those things which His power is working in me. So what good is such faith? The answer is no good. It's no good at all. It's nothing but an empty confession. It's nothing but a meaningless profession. It is like Matthew 7, "Lord, Lord, we did this and we did that..." And He says, "Depart from Me, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity." In other words, the point is this, I don't know you. I hear what you're confession but I see when I look at your life that you are workers of what? Of iniquity. Your claim is meaningless. Of what value is a claim to believe when all the evidence is unrighteousness? The point being that where there is the work of God there will be the evidence. And that is why in looking at false teachers in that same seventh chapter, he says "By their fruit you shall...what?...you shall know them."

That's the evidence. It's the product. I mean, it's so simple, people. Listen, it's this simple. You can not know that anyone possesses saving faith any other way than by their works. There's no other way to know it. It's the only way. And a claim with no evidence substantiates nothing.'

Cited

No one is saved by works, but no one is saved without producing works. Ephesians 2 states that persons are being saved by grace through faith, not of your own works, a gift of God...for good works.

Cited

'How well do you do? "The devils also believe and they go one better than you, they shake. You, my friend, are inferior to demons in your understanding." You see the sarcasm of "you do well, oh, you do well?" You're just one notch below demons. At least they shake. They're orthodox. You know that? They're orthodox. All demons are orthodox, there are no neo-orthodox demons. There are no liberal demons. There are no rationalistic demons. There are no heretical demons. They all believe the truth because they know it's true. They are orthodox and they tremble. The word "tremble" literally is the word "to bristle" from hair standing on end. They know what the godless are going to get and when they believe in God, they believe that God is and they know who God is and they shake because they know God is the judge. They go one better than those with dead faith. Dead faith is inferior, may I say it, dead faith is inferior to demon faith because at least the demons shudder. They don't produce good works either, by the way.'

Cited

'You know what I believe James is saying here? There are a lot of people who believe on the surface, but they really err in misunderstanding dead faith to be living faith. And if you convert them to the reality of a living faith, you will save a soul from what? From death.'

MacArthur would see dead faith basically equaling non-salvific faith.

Monergism and J.I. Packer

Cited

'Faith cannot be defined in subjective terms, as a confident and optimistic mind-set, or in passive terms, as acquiescent orthodoxy or confidence in God without commitment to God. Faith is an object-oriented response, shaped by that which is trusted, namely God himself, God’s promises, and Jesus Christ, all as set forth in the Scriptures. And faith is a whole-souled response, involving mind, heart, will, and affections. Older Reformed theology analyzed faith as notita (“knowledge,” i.e., acquaintance with the content of the gospel), plus assensus (“agreement,” i.e., recognition that the gospel is true), plus fiducia (“trust and reliance,” i.e., personal dependence on the grace of Father, Son, and Spirit for salvation, with thankful cessation of all attempts to save oneself by establishing one’s own righteousness: Rom. 4:5; 10:3). Without fiducia there is no faith, but without notita and assensus there can be no fiducia (Rom. 10:14).' 'When James says that faith without works is dead (i.e., a corpse), he is using the word faith in the limited sense of notita plus assensus , which is how those he addresses were using it. When he says that one is justified by what one does, not by faith alone, he means by “justified” “proved genuine; vindicated from the suspicion of being a hypocrite and a fraud.” James is making the point that barren orthodoxy saves no one (James 2:14-26).

Paul would have agreed, and James’s whole letter shows him agreeing with Paul that faith must change one’s life. Paul denounces the idea of salvation by dead works; James rejects salvation by dead faith. Though the believer’s works do not merit salvation and always have something imperfect about them (Rom. 7:13-20; Gal. 5:17), in their character as expressions of the love and fidelity that faith calls forth they are the basis on which God promises rewards in heaven (Phil. 3:12-14; 2 Tim. 4:7-8). For God thus to reward us according to our works is, as Augustine noted, his gracious crowning of his own gracious gifts.'

Packer states: 'Paul denounces the idea of salvation by dead works; James rejects salvation by dead faith.'

Pondering on this I reason that my tentative view with my first James 2 post that James 2 possibly can be tied to 1 Corinthians 3: 10-15 in regard to a believer dying with works burned up is questionable although certainly not dead.

Those in 1 Corinthians 3, like James 2 not producing good works, but Paul W. Marsh describes the works being burned up in 1 Corinthians as a fire of judgement. Judgement in Christ implied. It could be stated that these workers fail to provide good works, but they apparently still have a live, real faith. I can understand how those in 1 Corinthians 3 and 2 Peter 3 have an actual live faith, and where those in James 2 may not. I still take a Reformed view, although still tentatively, on 2 Peter 3 as being directed to Christians in regard to repentance so that they do not perish as in physically dying, in a state of non-repentance. Not being in the context of salvation.

1 Corinthians 3:10-15

English Standard

10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

2 Peter 3: 8-10

8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,[a] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies[b] will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.[c]

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

Brief On Nephilim/Origins Debate

Peru-Google+

Brief On Nephilim/Origins Debate

Edited: February 16, 2021, July 7, 2022

Driving back from work at night just now, in the oncoming lane separated by a concrete barrier, I heard and did not see, it was that fast and did not even see the lights if there were any on, a motorbike fly by at what I estimated was probably 100-130 mph... Crazy.

So as I am back from work I would like to finish this brief post: I started it earlier today and then was asked to come to work as a favour...

Brief On Nephilim

From Northview Community Church, theology class Wednesday night: Angels and Demons

Genesis 6: 1-6 English Standard Version

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, z“My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, afor he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. 5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Jude 1: 5-6  English Standard Version

5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved[c] a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,[b] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

The speculation by the pastor, citing some theologians in general, was that Jude 1 is describing the angels, the sons of God and the Nephilim from Genesis 6. The theory being these angels could no longer procreate being in prison. Likely the Abyss/Hades. Which 'likewise' indulged in sexual immorality.

Marshall translates it 'in the like manner'. Marshall (1984: 721).

ton omoion tropon
in the like    manner

For balance the pastor mentioned...

Matthew 22:30-31 English Standard Version

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

It could be deduced here that it is indicated that angels do not procreate and resurrected human beings shall not procreate. However, he noted the possibility that angels and demons taking human form could possibly procreate. Angels appearing as men in Genesis 19, for example--Sodom.

If some demonic beings could take the form of persons and have sexual relations, it is possible that some that are not in prison, the abyss, Hades, and are still capable of such acts. I am not dogmatic on this issue either way, but it is interesting.

Asexual?  

Edits: February 16, 2021

By the way, I do not reason that resurrected human beings being like angels means persons shall be asexual in the culminated Kingdom of God.

I think that is reading too much into what was stated.

See also Erickson and Kreeft with views of hyper-sexuality (my paraphrased term, in general agreement with their views) which I think are reasonable. Sexuality in the sense of spirit-body (1 Corinthians 15). Much more spiritual and pure than anything to be found in a fallen world.

Not mass celestial marriages or like.

In my mind, likely spirit-body essence bonding as opposed to body parts bonding as needed for pro-creation. A spirit-body without sin, allows a much deeper level of fellowship, including with one of the opposite sex.

This still being in line with Genesis 1-2 and God's plans for male and female.

Persons shall not procreate and shall not marry, like angels.

The fact human beings are resurrected as physical men and women still makes a serious and significant ontological distinction from angelic beings.

Note: Christ was resurrected as a man.

Erickson states that experiences in the culminated of God could be 'suprasexual' (1232). Beyond sexual union. (1232). Experiences in heaven will surpass those in this realm. (1232). The opposite sex can be enjoyed beyond sexual union in purity.

hyper and supra both meaning 'beyond' in context.

From

Is There Sex in Heaven?: Peter Kreeft.com

Sex in Heaven? Indeed, and no pale, abstract, merely mental shadow of it either. Earthly sex is the shadow, and our lives are a process of thickening so that we can share in the substance, becoming Heavenly fire so that we can endure and rejoice in the Heavenly fire.

Origins Debate

In regard the Bill Nye versus Ken Ham debate, I was emailed the following...

Cited

'A clash over worldviews by Lita Cosner, Scott Gillis, Keaton Halley

Creation was on the media’s radar again recently, thanks to the announcement that media personality Bill Nye (best-known for his TV show ‘Bill Nye the Science Guy’) would go head-to-head in a debate with Ken Ham at the Creation Museum in Kentucky. Bill Nye was actually criticized for debating a creationist by his fellow atheists.

Dr Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology at the University of Chicago, says that: “… he should just continue to write and talk about the issue on his own, and not debate creationists. By so doing, he gives them credibility simply by appearing beside them on the platform.”

Similarly, the high priest of evolution, Richard Dawkins, said: “I agree that to do this on Ham’s home turf was a mistake, and indeed it is almost always a mistake to give wingnuts the oxygen of publicity, and the respectability of being seen on a platform with a real scientist, anywhere.”

End citation

My edited replies:

Certainly do not agree with Nye and his naive Religious Studies evaluations. He fails to understand likely, philosophical subjects such as first cause and the need for it, instead claiming not to know, when a philosophical first cause although not proving a Biblical God, is in line with that Genesis 1, God concept.

I heard Ham debate Hughes Ross (Old Earth Christian Astronomer) and from what I remember I thought Ross won the debate easily on the scientific front and the Scripture discussion was at least a draw.

The argument for measurable light years was an argument seems to me that Ross won with easily. Using this to measure time and distance 'It is a Universal constant'. Oxford (2010: 773).

Reasons To Believe: Debate

I think Reason to Believe is good for the science, but I do not think Hugh Ross is a Religious scholar from what I have heard.

Cited

‘By contrast, RTB advocates an old-earth creation perspective. We interpret the “days” of Genesis as long ages.’

This from my less than exhaustive understanding would not necessarily be the case as ‘Yom’ can mean 24 hour days and is the interpretation of some for Genesis 1. However, it is quite possible to use a literal term in a poetic figurative literal context. Jesus can state: I am the door in John 10: 9 which according to Strong is a literal door...door, gate, portal, entrance (Strong p. 47) and yet here it is used in a figurative literal context, as Christ is stating that He is the way of salvation.

Additional

Lexicon

#2374. θυ´ρα thura; a prim. word; a door:— NASB - door(28), doors(6), entrance(3), gate(1), gates(1). And then...

Strong allows for plain literal and figurative uses of 'yowm' in 3117 (Strong p. 63).

Hebrew
ם 
yôm yome

From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially)

End citations

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130104.htm 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.knight.org/advent 

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books. AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. 

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust. 

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153, Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

KREEFT, PETER (1988) Fundamentals of the Faith, San Francisco, Ignatius Press. 

KREEFT, PETER AND RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

PAYNE DAVID F. (1986) 'Jude' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.