Seraphim are Firey Flying Serpents


Seraphim by Lakandiwa (click for source)

What I find troublesome is when Bible translators choose to transliterate a term in some passages but not in others. It’s troublesome because it seems to be done in order to hide the true meaning from the reader. It effectively amounts to censorship of the biblical text by translation committee.

For example, in the throne room of God, the word seraphim is transliterated

Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. (Isaiah 6:2)

However, later in Isaiah the exact same Hebrew term שָׂרָף is translated into English as “flying firey serpent”

Through a land of trouble and anguish, from where come the lioness and the lion, the adder and the flying fiery serpent, …(Isaiah 30:6)

It seems the flying firey serpents are fallen, rebel seraphim. Why the censorship by transliteration? Do the translators think people cannot handle the fact that flying serpentine beings are in the throne room of God? (it happens in other places as well, but unless you study the original languages you will never know it). This is one of the reasons why KJVonlyism (or dependence on any one translation) is so horribly vacuous for doing theology.

Astrobiology, the Vatican, and the Coming World Religion

This lecture was first made at The Prophecy Forum in Dublin, Ohio, November 16, 2014.

“God of the Gaps” Excuse is Circular Reasoning

Skeptics and atheists routinely invoke the “God of the gaps” excuse when faced with arguments for the existence of God. For example the cosmological argument for the existence of God. 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause; 2) The universe began to exist;  3) Therefore, the universe has a cause;

I like to add because that initial cause started nature it must transcend nature hence it is supernatural.

The skeptic replies along these lines, “That is a God of the gaps argument, simply because we don’t have a natural explanation yet, doesn’t mean we will never discover one, you are inserting God into the gaps of scientific knowledge.”

Jesuit astronomer Guy Consolmagno serves as a  prime example of such a consolmagnoskeptic with his comment,

Consolmagno: Well, when Hawking says we don’t need God to start the universe, he’s right. Anyone who’s trying to use God to explain the things that science can’t explain in the 21st century, is a fool because who knows what science is going to explain in the 23rd century? That’s called the God of the gaps.  (source)

However, I think this is circular reasoning because it assumes that there is a natural explanation forthcoming i.e. promissory naturalism (we do not have a natural explanation yet but one day we will). However, asserting that it is a “God of the gaps” argument, is to assume there is an undiscovered naturalistic cause but, in fact, that is the very thing in question. Invoking the “God of the gaps” label is circular reasoning, it assumes naturalism a priori.