Posted @ https://www.JohnMilor.com
I was on a Creationist website a while back, http://creation.com, and read an article that stated emphatically that there are no such things as extraterrestrials. I agree with the Creationists about a few things, such as the belief that God created everything, and like them, I do not believe in evolution. I also enjoy reading about OOPARTS (Out Of Place Artifacts), which Biologists usually have a hard time dealing with. But those two points were about all I agreed with, as far as the topic of extraterrestrial life is concerned.
I queried the article, stating that angels are intelligent life forms not native to Earth, so how could they have such a dogmatically resolute opinion over Scripture disproving in the existence of extraterrestrials? After all, didn’t theologians also claim an absolute infallible knowledge at one time that the Earth had to be in the center of the universe, and that even considering the possibility that it wasn’t, was heretical?
Someone named Gary Bates emailed me back and he immediately attacked my credentials. Never mind reading my books or checking out my website, which he said ‘No thanks’ to, to see if I have any valid points. I am not a seminary student, much less a PhD, and my books are ‘self-published,’ which he surmised with a smug comment. Then, after informing me that I was a victim of occult deception, ‘hook line and sinker,’ he pointed me in the direction of several of his articles on the Creationist website he wrote for. It wasn’t much of a sales pitch, needless to say, but I proceeded to read his main article refuting extraterrestrials anyway. If anything, I will come to a more full understanding of the typical Creationist response to the existence of extraterrestrial life.
His article, Did God Creation Life on Other Planets? (http://creation.com/did-god-create-life-on-other-planets) provides a list of theological points which claim to discredit the notion of extraterrestrial life on a theological basis. The first point is as follows:
Point 1: The Bible indicates that the whole creation groans and travails under the weight of sin (Romans 8:18–22). The effect of the Curse following Adam’s fall was universal. Otherwise what would be the point of God destroying this whole creation to make way for a new heavens and Earth—2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1? Therefore, any ETs living elsewhere would have been (unjustly) affected by the Adamic Curse through no fault of their own—they would not have inherited Adam’s sin nature.
In response to this argument, I agree with Scripture that the whole creation travails under the weight of sin, but the effects of sin that the whole creation must contend with, varies.
It is Satan who committed the first sin, and then he deceived a bunch of angels to sin along with him, all before he deceived Adam and Eve. Satan then entered the glorified Earth with his sin nature, and deceived Adam and Eve by lying to them. Sin, therefore, existed even in the Earth on a very limited scale, prior to Adam and Eve sinning. The sin of lying to Adam and Eve, therefore, had to exist within a special type of quarantine, because Scripture says that as far as the Earth is concerned, death didn’t enter the world until man sinned, despite the fact that Satan sinned on the Earth prior to man sinning, (Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:21).
Romans 8:19-22 9 [bold emphasis added]
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
Romans 5:14 [bold emphasis added]
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
1 Corinthians 15:21-26 [bold emphasis added]
For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
The reason God linked the unleashing of death on the Earth specifically, (but not necessarily the rest of the cosmos), to man’s sin rather than Satan’s sin, is most likely because man was given dominion over the Earth, (Genesis 1:26). Man was not given dominion over the sun, the moon, or the stars, so, if there are other extraterrestrials on other worlds in the cosmos where man may not have dominion, the only way that they would have to deal with the curse of death, is if they failed the same temptation as Adam and Eve did.
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Because of these facts, the ‘travailing’ that Romans 8:18-22 is speaking of is all creation being subjected to Satan’s temptations, (including angels). As for the curse of death, that only pertains to the Earth, and worlds containing advanced life forms in the cosmos where the temptation to sin was failed by those beings who may have been given dominion over their respective worlds.
Since the curse of death was not unleashed on all worlds containing life indiscriminately, (because there are still faithful angels in the heavens), the argument of extraterrestrials unjustly inheriting a sin nature, and receiving the curse of death through no fault of their own, no longer applies. Only beings that failed the temptation to sin within their specific dominion, would receive the curse of death.
Overall, in the vastness of the cosmos, spanning multiple dimensions, the beings on 1/3rd of the worlds containing life did just as Adam and Eve did, and failed in their temptation, if the third of the stars that Satan drags from the sky, is a reference to this life in the heavens, (Revelation 12:4).
Revelation 12:4 (bold emphasis and bracketed comments added)
And his tail drew the third part of the stars [their inhabitants] of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
*Note: Most Bible scholars interpret this scripture to mean that Satan deceived one-third of the inhabitants of the heavens, while the remaining two-thirds remained faithful to God.
Many of these beings referred to as ‘stars’ in the above scripture were angels, but some may have been just like Adam and Eve, reproducing after their own kind, living in a pseudo-immortal state, depending on the Tree of Life to sustain them. Notable author C. S. Lewis speculated this possibility of alien life in an essay titled Religion and Rocketry, and also in his fictional Space Trilogy. He and I, are on the same sheet of music with respect to leaning toward the affirmative, regarding the existence of ET life.
Considering one such possible interpretation of Scripture, when ET worlds with life became infected with the curse of death, the same thing that God did on Earth, most likely happened on their worlds; they were restricted from the Tree of Life on their worlds, and therefore became mortal, just as humans are mortal. For those that didn’t sin, however, they simply continued on just as Adam and Eve would’ve continued, in a glorified environment where there is no curse of death.
I know, I know, I’m arguing from silence; all the theological types hammer the gavel and bellow out this common phrase. But keep in mind, the explanation I am providing, does not violate Scripture, or contradict it, and it allows for a possible interpretation that allows for the existence of extraterrestrial life.
Finally, the final question Mr. Bates raised was “What would be the point of God destroying this whole creation to make way for a new heavens and Earth—2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1?”
My reply: while only parts of creation have had to contend with the curse of death, the whole creation has been dealing with Satan and his band of fallen angels on the loose, ever since Satan’s rebellion against God. The damage spread throughout the cosmos, therefore, is extensive enough to cause God to desire to renew all the heavens and the Earth, once Satan and his cohorts are confined to the Lake of Fire for all eternity.
The second point Mr. Bates raised, is as follows:
Point 2: When Christ (God) appeared in the flesh, He came to Earth not only to redeem mankind but eventually the whole creation back to Himself (Romans 8:21, Colossians 1:20). However, Christ’s atoning death at Calvary cannot save these hypothetical ETs, because one needs to be a physical descendant of Adam for Christ to be our ‘kinsman-redeemer’ (Isaiah 59:20). Jesus was called ‘the last Adam’ because there was a real first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45)—not a first Vulcan, Klingon, etc. This is so a sinless human Substitute takes on the punishment all humans deserve for sin (Isaiah 53:6,10; Matthew 20:28; 1 John 2:2, 4:10), with no need to atone for any (non-existent) sin of his own (Hebrews 7:27).
My question to this point is why does one need to be a physical descendant of Adam, in order for Christ to be a ‘kinsman-redeemer’? I see absolutely no qualification for a specific species in Isaiah 59:20. Calling Jesus a redeemer, is not the same thing as calling Jesus a redeemer of humanity alone. When I read this Scripture, I see the word “Redeemer,” and not the words “Redeemer for humanity alone.”
Isaiah 59:20
“And a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression,” declares the LORD.
I do find it interesting to note, however, that Mr. Bates pointed out Colossians 1:20, which states the following:
Colossians 1:20 (bold emphasis added)
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
This Scripture begs the question, exactly what things are in the heavens, which require reconciliation with God? Hebrews 2:16–18 indicates that salvation is not for angels, but for the descendants of Abraham.
Hebrews 2:16–18 (bold emphasis added)
For verily He took not on him the nature of angels; but He took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted.
Does this Scripture confine salvation to the inhabitants of Earth only?
What’s more, the true descendants of Abraham cannot possibly be defined as biological descendants. Why? Because such a definition would be based on one’s DNA rather than the grace of God. That would disqualify a large, faithful portion of even the human race. For this, we look for another Scripture, which defines the descendants of Abraham as those who belong to Christ (Galatians 3:26–29).
Galatians 3:26–29 (bold emphasis added)
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
No word is mentioned about what species they are, or what planet or dimension they come from. In fact, this Scripture tears down distinctions, amplifying God’s grace and glory, if anything. It only states that salvation is not for the angels, but even that statement is somewhat vague. What defines an angel? Better yet, who defines an angel?
Generically, the word angel can simply refer to a messenger, but Jesus defined glorified, other-worldly angels, with more specific criteria. He said they are beings who neither marry nor are given in marriage. He also said that humans who are saved would one day be translated into this new nature (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35; Revelation 21:16–17; 22:8–9).
Matthew 22:30 (bold emphasis added)
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mark 12:25 (bold emphasis added)
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
Luke 20:35–36 (bold emphasis added)
But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
Revelation 22:8–9 is possibly an example of this glorified state, where Scripture refers to a glorified saint (a man, one of the brethren) as being an angel.
Revelation 22:9 (bold emphasis added)
Then said he unto me, “See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.”
Considering these details, one may easily deduce that the angels weren’t always angels. They were most likely like us: created to reproduce after their own kind, just as Adam and Eve were until they reached a certain point in their existence when God translated them into a new, higher level of existence. The Bible calls this biological/spiritual metamorphosis, a translation. This theory explains a great deal about some of the behavior of angels, such as the fact that some of them who rebelled against God, seemed to revert to a previous nature. When that happened, they became physically attracted to humans (Genesis 6). Such attraction would be a very odd thing if reproduction were foreign to them.
Adam and Eve were never angels; they sexually reproduced. If Adam and Eve had never sinned, Earth would’ve eventually become fully populated. The next level of existence for humanity would have then commenced. At the proper time, God would have translated different people at different times into a new, non-reproductive nature, as we now know He still plans to do, despite the fall. I suspect that this is how God designed most, if not all, higher life-forms, destined to rule as God’s representatives, over their respective domains.
Initially there is a reproductive stage, but then a metamorphosis/translation takes place, that transforms these entities into an eternally glorified existence that no longer entails reproduction.
In a sense, we are like butterflies—designed to go through a biological/spiritual metamorphosis.
This is where humanity has come from, where it is going, and—from what it looks like—where the angels, both faithful and fallen, have been. In essence to be an angel is to be translated by God into the highest form of existence, rather than to be made into an angel fresh from the start, as most Bible students think.
Putting all this together, one may surmise that salvation may not be for the angels because they are closer to God than any other being, and they have the highest level of accountability. There are probably countless numbers who aren’t angels, however, on worlds with mixed angelic and non-angelic populations, who aren’t from Earth or our current dimension. If they are in the same boat as the humans of Earth, then why aren’t they candidates for salvation as well?
Scripture states that Jesus suffered death on the cross once and for all (Hebrews 10:10), and that’s that. I see no reason He should have to suffer a similar fate anywhere else. Why would Jesus’ dealing with sin and death be any different as another species on another planet? Temptation is temptation, and sin is sin, whether you’re human, or another species, and God defines sin and death with absolute definitions that pertain to all existence. Therefore the cross is sufficient for all of it, even if it extends into the cosmos.
Hebrews 10:10 (bold emphasis added)
By thee which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Mr. Bates continues with his third point:
Point 3: Since extraterrestrials would have no hope for salvation, this would mean that any ETs would be lost for eternity when this present creation is destroyed in a fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10, 12). Because of this, some have wondered whether Christ’s sacrifice might be repeated elsewhere for other beings. However, Christ died once for all (Romans 6:10, 1 Peter 3:18) on the Earth. He is not going to be crucified and resurrected again on other planets (Hebrews 9:26). This is confirmed by the fact that the redeemed (earthly) church is known as Christ’s bride (Ephesians 5:22–33; Revelation 19:7–9) in a marriage that will last for eternity. Christ is not going to be a polygamist with many other brides from other planets. The Bible makes no provision for God to redeem any other species, any more than to redeem fallen angels (Hebrews 2:16).
For once, I actually agree with Mr. Bates, concerning Christ’s sacrifice not being repeated elsewhere. But where I disagree, is with Mr. Bates’ reasoning behind Jesus’ sacrifice not being repeated elsewhere, and also his conclusion that Jesus would be a polygamist if He saved other species in the cosmos.
First of all, the scriptures that Mr. Bates quotes as saying that the redeemed church is “earthly,” (Ephesians 5:22-23; Revelation 19:7-9), do not say anything at all about the church being “earthly.” The Bride of Christ is simply all those who believe in Jesus, and no restriction is mentioned in Scripture about where they come from, or what species they are.
Ephesians 5:22-23
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Revelation 19:7-9
Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.”
Secondly, Jesus is not a spiritual polygamist, just because He redeems other species from the curse of death. Consider the animals mentioned in Isaiah 11:6-9; 65:25; they appear to be redeemed from a carnivorous and violent nature, do they not? He also saved the animals aboard Noah’s Ark; animals were important enough to God, to save them.
I don’t see why redeeming another species has to be viewed as spiritual polygamy, that’s absurd. What about the angels? They’re not ‘redeemed’ like us, but God did create them, and He loves them just like He loves humans. Is God a polygamist, because He created angels, too? No, so why would He be considered a polygamist for saving other species? I simply don’t see the connection.
Isaiah 11:6–9 (bold emphasis added)
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 65: 25
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, says the LORD.
After Mr. Bates’ three main points, none of which disprove the existence of extraterrestrials, he then attempts to refute a well known Scripture that some UFOlogists have used to support the possibility of extraterrestrial life, which is John 10:16. Jesus is quoted as saying ‘I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.’ To this, Mr. Bates states the following:
However, even an ET-believing astronomer at the Vatican (thus a ‘hostile witness’ to the ‘no ETs cause’), a Jesuit priest by the name of Guy Consalmagno, concedes, ‘In context, these “other sheep” are presumably a reference to the Gentiles, not extraterrestrials.’ Jesus’ teaching was causing division among the Jews (vs. 19) because they always believed that salvation from God was for them alone. Jesus was reaffirming that He would be the Savior of all mankind.
Just because a Jesuit priest at the Vatican has an opinion about what this particular Scripture means within its context, doesn’t mean his opinion is infallible. I believe that Scripture is infallible, but I trust no one person’s interpretation of Scripture, including my own, as being infallible. I do agree that Jesus was talking about Gentiles, but He may have also been talking about extraterrestrials as well. It seems to be a common theme, for people to want to exclude others from God’s grace. The Jews couldn’t fathom salvation for the Gentiles, and now we have Gentiles (non-Jews) that can’t fathom salvation pertaining to sheep of another fold, who might not even be from Earth.
Much of Mr. Bates’ article digresses into the Young Earth vs. Old Earth theories, and he quotes some ideas espoused by authors Michael S. Heiser, and Hugh Ross, both of which follow the Old Earth theories, which the Creationist website ardently rejects.
Heiser claimed that it might be possible for sinless God-created aliens to exist, because they are not descendants of Adam, and therefore have not inherited his sin nature. I agree with Dr. Heiser on this matter, questioning why such intelligent beings would not have any degree of moral accountability. But Heiser then continues to suggest that these beings would be no different than ‘bunny rabbits’ on the earth that do not need salvation—even though they will die, because they are going to neither heaven nor hell. But I have to ask Heiser, how does he know that? Who says rabbits don’t go to heaven? Maybe they don’t, but then again, maybe they do. Why wouldn’t they? Animals definitely have freewill; I had a cat that knowingly risked its own life to save me once. Does such a sacrifice mean nothing?
Animals are cursed with death just like humans are, so maybe salvation pertains to them as well, in so much as they have a conscience that communes with God on a rudimentary level. Maybe its death that’s not natural, and the default of a lifeform is perpetual life, but Earth is cursed, and so are we, so we naturally can’t fathom the possibility that we view things backward.
Scripture gives penalties to animals for committing certain sins, indicating that animals do have some type of moral compass. One clear way to spot spiritual laws is the fact that breaking them results in punishment. The main spiritual law that scripture documents concerning animals, is that no animal should ever murder a human being.
When God first created the animals, He ingrained in them a sense of fear concerning humanity. This respect animals were designed with is mentioned in Genesis 9:2.
Genesis 9:2
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
In a sense, this natural fear of humanity can be considered a law of moral accountability for animals. The extreme violation of this ingrained respect for humanity is expressed when an animal murders a human being. The penalty for murdering a human being is death. This penalty applies to men, and beasts, and is mentioned in Genesis 9:3-6.
Genesis 9:3-6
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Exodus 21:28-36 is a recapitulation of Genesis 9:3-6, except that it’s more specific. It’s my guess that there were probably several incidents regarding oxen that killed people, so God deemed it necessary to provide the people of Israel with additional guidance regarding oxen.
The law “Thou shalt not kill,” is a law that according to scripture, animals have written upon their hearts. The penalty for violating this law is death. This law and its penalty are strait forward, and should be clear to see in the scriptures.
Animals probably have spirits, and are dealing with sin just as humans are, though in a more primitive form than humans. Another link that testifies that animals are dealing with sin is that they have been cursed with death, just as humans are. This can be assumed from Romans 5:12-14, and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, and the fact that there are currently no immortal animals.
Romans 5:12-14
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1 Corinthians 15:21-22
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Seeing that animals are faced with the terrible dilemma of sin and death, is there any hope in salvation for them? I believe that on some level, God may very well test every animal’s heart, judging them according to the truth they have received, just as He tests every human’s heart in like manner. The scriptures in Isaiah I pointed out earlier, definitely state that there are glorified animals in the heavenly realm, so I see no reason to suggest that these animals have not been redeemed.
The Creationist organization behind the Creation.com website is exceptionally dogmatic about its view of a Young Earth, which is an underlying current that gives shape to many of its views. One of their main arguments refuting the Old Earth theory comes from their view that sin and death entered the world for the very first time through Adam and Eve sinning. If one understands, however, that it was Satan who unleashed sin on the Earth to begin with, even before Adam and Eve were ever created, and that the account of creation from Genesis 1:2-2:25 is a restoration of the Earth to a habitable state, rather than an original creation, then the whole problem of sin existing in the world prior to Adam and Eve is solved. Unfortunately, it takes several chapters of a book to fully explain all of this sufficiently, and doing that spans beyond the scope of this article. So for the sake of brevity, anyone interested in learning more about Lucifer’s kingdom that once existed on Earth prior to Adam and Eve, and what became of it, as documented in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, can check out one of my books, such as Christian Ufology (www.ChristianUfology.net) , or The Strong Delusion (www.TheStrongDelusion.net), which are listed on my author website, www.JohnMilor.com, where all of my books are listed.
In my correspondence with Mr. Bates, I could scarcely write a sentence without him disagreeing with me. When I mentioned that angels were extraterrestrials, he corrected me, saying that they were inter-dimensional beings.
I agree, most probably are, but so are ETs. My answer to that was that they’re extraterrestrial, and inter-dimensional. Most UFOlogists these days espouse this view, but he wouldn’t know that, because he would rather plug his ears than hear someone who disagrees with him, utter a sentence.
This statement only opened up another can of worms. According to Mr. Bates, the concept of a multidimensional universe supports the Big Bang theory, which in turn supports the theory of evolution, and therefore must be wrong. With that one sentence, there was so much dot-connecting going on that I didn’t know where to begin.
For example, just because there might have been a Big Bang, doesn’t mean that God didn’t ignite it, or that God didn’t direct the creation of life following that bang. As for the concept of a multidimensional universe, this is actually specifically discussed in Scripture. It wouldn’t be possible for hell to physically exist inside the Earth, (i.e. the heart of the Earth), if the Earth wasn’t composed of a multidimensional construct, (Ezekiel 31:16; Matthew 12:40). And if the Earth is composed of a multidimensional construct, then why wouldn’t the rest of the universe be as well?
Matthew 12:40
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
*Note that 1 Peter 3:19 states that Jesus was preaching to spirits in prison, during this time that He was in the heart of the Earth.
I have also always viewed the heavens as being integrated with the universe, as the Bible first directly states in Genesis 1:14, during the creation of the heavens.
Genesis 1:14-15
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.
Obviously there are different ways of viewing reality, and Mr. Gates’ view of the heavens puts it somewhere outside of creation, which I do not understand on any level. Scripture actually documents the existence of three heavens, but again, that level of detail spans beyond the scope of this article.
The Creation.com website was also very rigid in its opinions about various technical details, such as the claim that intergalactic space travel is flat out impossible for any species to achieve. Such arguments sound to me like “If man were meant to fly, God would’ve given him wings.”
Throughout history, people have made claims about things they didn’t understand, and argued emphatically over things that it turned out they were flat out wrong about. It is true that all things within the physical universe must follow the laws of physics, but that does not naturally conclude that we know everything there is to know, about the laws of physics. To state that intergalactic travel is impossible, is claiming an infallible and complete knowledge of physics, which is ludicrous.
In summation, I believe many Creationists are going to be scrambling for answers on the day of first contact. They will no longer be able to shut people down by saying their quandaries are purely hypothetical and would never happen. I don’t know how many times I was rebuked by Mr. Bates for asking him questions based on future scenarios of first contact, which he absolutely refused to acknowledge. He accused me of appealing to emotion, of being deceived, of arguing from silence, and said a number of other things, all of which were orchestrated to deny even the remotest possibility that there might really be extraterrestrials in the cosmos.
I told him that he’d be much better off sticking to the basics, such as “God created all life, not random chance,” because they have built an entire paradigm around so many connected dots, that if any one of the things they hold firm to are discovered to be false, their entire paradigm will be thrown into complete chaos. It will actually be easier to believe in the deceptions to come, if all the creationists have to offer Christians are a bunch of inflexible beliefs, some of which are not even required for scripture to be true, and some of which may also be proven false in the future. This is my primary concern as a writer and a believer. I research and write to explore possibilities, and prepare believers for worse case scenarios. I am trying to prepare believers to be able to interpret scripture in ways they have not previously considered.
Mr. Bates may think that I’m deceived into believing in the existence of extraterrestrials. He may also continue to believe this on the day of first contact, and even afterwards, following man’s invention of a hyperspace propulsion drive, which will propel him to distant worlds that have advanced life forms on them. In the aftermath of these events that I predict will come to pass, using prophecy as my credential, rather than a PhD, Mr. Bates says “No thanks,” to reading any of my research.
But not everyone may agree with Mr. Bates. I therefore invite anyone reading this article to consider visiting my website, https://www.JohnMilor.com. If you can’t afford my books, email me a request for a PDF, (jmilor@yahoo.com) and I will hook you up – for free. I’d appreciate an Amazon review in response, but that’s optional.
And who knows, if first contact does happen in the near future, and it is definitely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that extraterrestrials exist, this research might come in handy for Christians wanting answers that fit with the reality they see unfolding before them. They won’t have to endure a crisis of faith, because of a bunch of non-scriptural misunderstandings that have no bearing on one’s salvation.