Science, Common Sense, and Genesis 1:1 by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3758

Science, Common Sense, and Genesis 1:1

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The most fundamental question that a person can (and should) ask is: “Where did the Universe and everything in it (including myself) come from?” Before a person seeks answers to questions such as, “Why am I here?” or “Where am I going?” he first needs to know from whence he came? It is fitting that the only God-inspired book in the world—the Bible—answers this very question in its opening statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, emp. added). In the subsequent verses, man is informed that not only did God create the heavens and the earth, but He made everything in the heavens and on the Earth (Genesis 1:2-31; cf. Exodus 20:11). According to Scripture, everything that exists in the physical Universe ultimately came from an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite Creator (Genesis 17:1; 18:14; Psalm 139; 90:2).

The theory that atheistic evolutionists have advanced for several decades now, which supposedly best explains our existence from a purely naturalistic perspective, is known as the Big Bang. It has circulated via science textbooks all over the world. One of the leading publishers of science curricula for many years has been Prentice Hall. In their 1992 General Science textbook, titled A Voyage of Discovery, they included the following section on “The Birth and Death of the Universe”:

How was the universe born and how will it end? Most astronomers believe that about 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded. This explosion is called the big bang. One result of the big bang was the formation of galaxies, all racing away from one another (Hurd, et al., p. 61, emp. in orig.).

Since 1992 the “birth of the Universe” has been shaved substantially (from 18 to 20 billion years ago to 12 to 15 billion years ago—see Biggs, et al., 2003, p. 159), but the theory is more or less the same. Ask an atheist how the Universe came to be and you likely will hear that “it all started with a big bang.”

So which is it? Did everything in the physical Universe come into existence via the supernatural or the natural? Was it caused by a purely naturalistic Big Bang or an infinite Mighty God? How did Earth get here? How did the other seven planets in our Solar System come into being? Whence came the Milky Way and the billions of other galaxies in the Universe? How did the multiplied quadrillions of stars (some of which are hundreds of times bigger than the Sun) come into existence? Although atheistic, evolutionary scientists are fond of ridiculing Genesis 1:1 as being unreasonable and unscientific, the fact is, Scripture’s explanation for ultimate origins is both sensible and scientific.

First, a study of the material Universe reveals that all physical effects must have adequate causes that precede the effects (a truism known as the Law of Cause and Effect). One drop of rain does not flood an entire city, a paper airplane cannot carry an astronaut to the Moon, nor can a fire extinguisher cool the Sun. But what about the effect of the Universe itself? What was its cause? Was the gargantuan Universe caused by an explosion of a minute ball of matter or by an omnipotent Creator? Just as easily as one can know that a paper airplane is unable to transport an astronaut to the Moon, he can know that naturalistic explanations (e.g., Big Bang theory) are not adequate causes for the Universe. But God is.

Second, from what we observe in nature, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. Scientists refer to this fact as the First Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists allege that the Universe began with the explosion of a ball of matter several billion years ago, yet they never have provided a reasonable explanation for the cause of the “original” ball of matter. An attempt was made a few years ago in the April 28, 2007 issue of New Scientist magazine titled “The Beginning: What Triggered the Big Bang?” Notice the last line of the featured article: “[T]he quest to understand the origin of the universe seems destined to continue until we can answer a deeper question: why is there anything at all instead of nothing?” (194[2601]:33, emp. added). The fact is, a logical, naturalistic explanation for the origin of the “original” ball of matter that supposedly led to the Universe does not exist. It cannot exist so long as the First Law of Thermodynamics is true (i.e., in nature matter/energy cannot create itself).

Third, since the physical Universe exists, and yet it could not have created itself, then the Universe is either eternal or something/someone outside of the Universe must have created it. Relatively few scientists propose that the Universe is eternal. In fact, there would be no point in attempting to explain the “beginning” of the Universe if atheists believed it always existed. What’s more, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy become less usable over time, has led most scientists to conclude that the Universe has not always existed (else we would be out of usable energy; see Miller, 2007). But, if matter is not eternal, and it cannot create itself, then the only logical conclusion is that something/someone outside of nature (i.e., supernatural) caused the Universe and everything in it. Christians call this Someone, “the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 40:28).

Finally, not only do the scientific Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Cause and Effect support the truth of Genesis 1:1, so also does the fact that design demands a designer. Just as sure as a painting demands a painter and a law a law-giver, the orderly, law-abiding, picturesque heavens and Earth demand, not a random, mindless, unexplained explosion (when have explosions ever caused order and design?), but an intelligent Designer. As the psalmist wrote: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1). What’s more, “the whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3). Indeed, both the heavens and the Earth testify day after day and night after night to anyone and everyone who will listen (Psalm 19:2-4) that “He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).

Naturalistic explanations for the Universe and its laws leave an explanatory void that only a supernatural Being (i.e., God) can fill. If man will only open his eyes and ears, he will discover what both Heaven and Earth reveal: that “the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (Hebrews 11:3). Rather, “God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, emp. added).
 

REFERENCES

Biggs, Alton, et al. (2003), Science (New York: McGraw-Hill).

Hurd, Dean, George Mathias, and Susan Johnson, eds. (1992), General Science: A Voyage of Discovery (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

“The Universe Before Ours” (2007), New Scientist, 194[2601]:28-33, April 28.

Science: Instituted by God by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4213

Science: Instituted by God

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Some contend that science is at odds with religion. They suggest that the scientific method requires empirical testing, but God’s existence cannot be empirically verified. Science supposedly proves the Big Bang, evolutionary theory, a very old Universe, and dinosaurs that never co-existed with humans, while the Bible mistakenly contends that the Universe was created in six literal, 24-hour days only a few thousand years ago, with humans and dinosaurs being created together on day six. Supposedly, science is based on verifiable evidence, whereas religion is based on “blind faith” and ambiguous “tinglies” attributed to the Holy Spirit. For such reasons, it is claimed that science and Scripture cannot be harmonized—that they are diametrically opposed to each another.

In reality, however, true science agrees perfectly with Scripture. Though God’s existence cannot be empirically verified, it can be easily verified through deductive reasoning from the scientific evidence available to us—in the same way forensic scientists use science to investigate events that they did not personally witness. While atheists have successfully created the mirage that science supports their theories, abundant scientific evidence exists which disproves the Big Bang Theory, evolutionary theory, an old Universe, and proves that dinosaurs and humans co-existed (see www.apologeticspress.org for more information on these matters). And yet, no scientific evidence exists that contradicts the true creation model. Rather, the evidence always supports it. The concept of “blind faith,” though championed by many who call themselves Christians, is at odds with Scripture, which defines faith as choosing to believe in something, based on the evidence that has been presented for it, and responding accordingly (see Miller, 2003). Atheistic scientists are simply wrong in their sweeping accusation that science and religion are at odds.

Though some theistic beliefs contradict science, when handled accurately (2 Timothy 2:15), Scripture and science compliment each other perfectly. For instance, science has shown us that matter is not eternal, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and could not have spontaneously generated—popping into existence from nothing—according to the First Law of Thermodynamics. This fact indicates that matter must have been placed here by an Entity outside the physical Universe (see Miller, 2007). This truth, arrived at through science and deductive reasoning, is not in harmonywith atheism and much of today’s pseudo-science. But this truth is in keeping with the Bible, which says in its very first verse that God—a Being not subject to the laws of nature (i.e., a supernatural Being)—created the heavens and the Earth. Science supports Scripture.

Science has shown us that in nature, life comes only from life and that of its kind, according to the Law of Biogenesis. Again, this fact indicates that a Being outside of nature must exist Who initiated life (see Miller, 2012). This truth, arrived at through science and deductive reasoning, is not in harmonywith atheism and much of today’s pseudoscientific world which must contend, without scientific support, that life popped into existence from non-life. Rather, this truth is in keeping with the Bible, which says in Genesis 1:11,24 and 2:7 that God created life.

Science—the Law of Biogenesis and the Laws of Genetics—has shown us that living beings produce other living beings of their own kind (see Thompson, 2002). There may be small changes along the way (e.g., beak size, color, size, etc.), but the offspring of a bird is still a bird. The offspring of a fish is still a fish. Therefore, since there is no common ancestor for all living beings from which all species evolved, there must be a supernatural Being Who initially created various kinds of life on Earth. This truth, arrived at through science and deductive reasoning, is not in harmony with the teachings of atheism and much of today’s pseudo-scientific world, which argues against the evidence, that various kinds of living beings can give rise to completely different kinds of living beings. But this truth is in keeping with the Bible, which says in Genesis 1:21 and 1:24-25 that God directed living beings to reproduce after their kind.

True science is in harmony with true religion. Why would science lie? It does not have a mind of its own. It has no bias or agenda. It can certainly be misrepresented or its findings misinterpreted, but science is not the enemy of true religion. In fact, according to the Bible, God, Himself, instituted the field of science. When God created human beings on day six and told them to “have dominion” over the Earth and “subdue” it (Genesis 1:28), He was commanding mankind to do something that would require extensive scientific investigation and experimentation. If God founded science, why would science be at odds with religion? When God, through His servant Paul, said in Romans 1:20 that His existence and some of His attributes could be learned from His creation, He was putting His stamp of approval on the scientific study of creation. When He said in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to “[t]est all things; hold fast what is good,” He was essentially summarizing the scientific method. Bottom line: God founded science. When legitimate scientific findings are interpreted properly and fairly, science supports the Bible and Christianity. It certainly is not at odds with the Bible.

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2003), “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/article/444.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Thompson, Bert (2002), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Scientists Are Human, Too! by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3746

Scientists Are Human, Too!

by	Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

The scientific community has been doing some soul-searching of late. At the center of the issue is the question of objectivity in science. The philosophy of scientism would have us believe that science is the only road to truth and, therefore, that scientists are the sole guardians of knowledge. Practically speaking, most scientists probably would acknowledge that science is a human endeavor and, consequently, subject to the imperfections of its practitioners. Nonetheless, the scientific establishment is wrestling with issues of pseudoscience, bias, and fraud.

PSEUDOSCIENCE

This first category usually includes the paranormal, various New Age beliefs, and personal encounters with UFOs. Proponents of naturalism and materialism expand this definition to include any scientific theory that challenges their personal perception of the world. Examples would be creationism, cold fusion, homeopathic medicine, and the Gaia hypothesis. Personally, I do not subscribe to the last three ideas. However, some scientists depart from objectivity in their harsh criticism of such unconventional views.

BIAS

Of course, creationists have argued that their view can compete on the same level as evolutionary theories (e.g., Geisler and Anderson, 1987). It is here that I raise the issue of bias. In the big picture, the purpose of consensus is to prevent confusion arising from unconfirmed or seemingly suspect research. Supposedly, scientists will not accept any new theory until their collective learning and experience tell them that it is better than the existing one. Still, some charge that editors of professional journals, and peer reviewers, occasionally resist publishing opposing views. Consensus should not censor, but should encourage more rigorous work.

Sometimes the resistance can be great indeed. For example, Halton Arp thinks he has found evidence that supports his theory against the prevailing Big Bang theory. However, he has difficulty getting access to major telescopes because other scientists do not believe he could possibly be right (Arp, 1990).

The same people will hardly give creationism a fair hearing. The following list is a small selection of attitudes that illustrate my point.

Faith in creation is personal and subjective, whereas faith in evolution is universal and objective (Ferrell, 1991).

Any scientific experiments that set out to confirm the Bible are automatically unscientific (Rice, 1989).

Although Werhner von Braun led America into space, his belief in creationism prevents him from being considered a “true” scientist (Jones, 1989).

One evolutionist said this in response to the young age of dinosaur bones dated by a group of creationists: “No matter what date they claim, the dinosaurs died out 66 million years ago” (Lafferty, 1991).

FRAUD

Sadly, fraud and misconduct have tainted the history of science. Perhaps the most famous example is the so-called Piltdown man, which was announced to the world in 1912. Clever forgers put a human skull with the jaw bone of a modern ape, and aged it artificially. The hoax fooled many great experts until the early 1950s, when new techniques exposed the deception. This is an embarrassing incident, not just for science, but for evolution. For almost forty years, evolutionists pointed to the Piltdown man as an example of the alleged ape-man transition. The Piltdown case has a positive side, however. It teaches us that science can correct itself, despite the consensus.

CONCLUSION

Some scientists may call our view pseudoscience, look with bias on our scientific case, and present false arguments to the world, whether intentional or otherwise. However, science itself is not the enemy of truth. Certainly, science and scientists have their limitations, but we can work within those limitations to advance the cause of our Creator.

REFERENCES

Arp, Halton (1990), “Discordant Observations,” Science, 249:611, August 10.

Ferrell, Keith (1991), “The Chasm of Creationism,” Omni, 14[1]:14, October.

Geisler, Norman L. and J. Kerby Anderson (1987), Origin Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Jones, Lewis (1989), “The Two Cultures: A Resurrection,” Skeptical Inquirer, 14[1]:57-64, Fall.

Lafferty, Michael B. (1991), “Creationists Say Dinosaurs Lived With Man,” Columbus Dispatch, pp. 1B-2B, November 3

Rice, Stanley (1989), “ ‘Faithful in the Little Things’: Creationists and ‘Operation Science,’ ” Creation/Evolution, 25:8-14.

---

Originally published in Reason & Revelation, March 1993, 13[3]:22. Copyright © 1993 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

"THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER" Our Duties To Each Other (3:8-12) by Mark Copeland

"THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER"

Our Duties To Each Other (3:8-12)

INTRODUCTION

1. So far in his epistle, Peter has defined the Christian's duties in 
   various relationships...
   a. Our duty in relation to those of the world - 1Pe 2:11-12
   b. Our duty in relation to governmental authorities - 1Pe 2:13-17
   c. Our duty in a servant-master relationship - 1Pe 2:18-25
   d. Our duty in wife-husband relationships - 1Pe 3:1-7

2. Beginning now in verse 8 of the third chapter, Peter defines our
   duty to each other as brethren in Christ...

[Peter will provide motivation to fulfill our duties to one another in 
verses 10-12, but let's first consider what these duties are...]

I. OUR DUTIES TO EACH OTHER (8-9)

   A. TO "BE OF ONE MIND" (NASV, "harmonious")...
      1. That is, to be united in the same purpose, the same goal
      2. Jesus prayed for this kind of unity in Jn 17:20-21
      3. A church that demonstrated this "oneness of mind" is that of 
         Jerusalem - Ac 4:32
      4. How can we have this "oneness of mind"?
         a. It is attainable only to the extent that we all submit to 
            the will of God
         b. Therefore, we all need to make God's Will our will, His 
            Purpose our purpose
         c. Even as Christ did while on earth - cf. Jn 5:30

   B. TO HAVE "COMPASSION FOR ONE ANOTHER" (NASV, "sympathetic")...
      1. This means to have pity, a feeling of distress toward the ills
         of others
      2. It is that disposition which is moved by the problems of 
         others (like sickness, hardships, etc.)
      3. This is the attitude manifested by Jesus...
         a. During His earthly ministry - Mt 9:35-36
         b. During His heavenly ministry - He 4:15
      4. Such compassion can only come from a tender, loving heart, 
         which may be why Peter goes on to say that we need...

   C. TO "LOVE AS BROTHERS"...
      1. Literally, this means to be "brother lovers"
      2. This attribute is essential, if we are to...
         a. Grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ - 2Pe 1:7-8
         b. Convince the world that we are truly disciples of Jesus - 
            Jn 13:35
      3. Are you a "brother lover"?  If not...
         a. You are not a lover of God, either! - 1Jn 4:20
         b. You do not even know God! - 1Jn 4:7-8
      4. Here is one way to know if you are a "brother lover"...
         a. Ask yourself this question:  "Do I even know my brother?"
         b. If you don't, how can you honestly say that you are a 
            "brother lover"?
      
   D. TO "BE TENDERHEARTED" (NASV, "kindhearted")...
      1. It is this kind of heart that is compassionate, capable of 
         loving our brethren
      2. The opposite would be "cold-hearted", where we are insensitive
         to the needs and feelings of others
      3. Even if we start out as "cold-hearted", in Christ Jesus we can
         and must undergo a transformation, in which we develop a 
         "tender heart" - cf. Ep 4:22-24, 31-32; Col 3:8-10,12
      4. Have you considered what kind of heart you have?

   E. TO "BE COURTEOUS" (NASV, "humble in spirit")...
      1. Literally, to be "friendly of mind, kind"
         a. Such courtesy would imply a humility of spirit
         b. For an arrogant or proud spirit does not bother to be 
            courteous
      2. Christians are to imitate their Lord and Savior, and not think
         so highly of themselves that they cannot be kind and courteous
         to others - cf. Php 2:3-5

   F. TO "RETURN BLESSING FOR EVIL"...
      1. When someone (e.g., a brother) does us evil, we are to respond
         with a blessing!
      2. While this may go against "human nature", Peter gives two 
         reasons why we are to react in this way:
         a. We are called to follow the example of Christ 

            - cf. 1Pe 3:9 with 1Pe 2:21-23
         b. That we might receive a blessing from God - cf. Lk 6:35

[These are six duties that we have one toward another.  They are part 
of what constitutes the Christ-like character that we are to develop as
His disciples.

Being saved, then, is not the end of God's plan for us; He would have 
us become like His Son (cf. Ro 8:29).  To motivate us in fulfilling 
these duties, Peter quotes from the 34th Psalm...]

II. MOTIVATION TO FULFILL THESE DUTIES (10-12)

   A. THAT WE MIGHT "LOVE LIFE AND SEE GOOD DAYS"...
      1. Everyone wishes to enjoy life as they experience it from day 
         to day...
         a. But too often, many make their own lives miserable by their
            own self-seeking, self-destructive attitudes
         b. Constantly complaining, contentious, retaliating to evil 
            with evil, they only aggravate the situation
      2. But David in his psalm gives the secret to loving life and 
         seeing good days:
         a. Refrain the tongue from evil, and lips from speaking guile 
            - 1Pe 3:10
            1) I.e., don't engage in slander, backbiting, complaining, 
               lying, murmuring, and grumbling
            2) It doesn't solve difficulties, but only makes them worse
         b. Do good, seek peace and pursue it - 1Pe 3:11
            1) I.e., do the very kind of things mentioned by Peter in 
               1Pe 3:8-9
            2) Only then will your life be pleasant, for the qualities 
               described by Peter...
               a) Make the best out of difficult situations
               b) Make good situations even better!

   B. SO THE LORD WILL BE OPEN TO US - 1Pe 3:12
      1. Only by doing the will of God (as found in 1Pe 3:8-9) can we
         ensure that...
         a. His gracious eyes will watch over us
         b. His ears will be open to our prayers
      2. On the other hand, the Lord's face is against those who do 
         evil, and will not hear their prayers
      3. Indeed, consider the list of abominations found in Pr 6:16-19
         and notice how many are the direct opposite of how we are to be...
         a. We are to be courteous (humble) - but the Lord hates a 
            proud look!
         b. We are to be compassionate - but abusing the innocent is an
            abomination to the Lord!
         c. We are to be tender-hearted - but the Lord hates a cold 
            heart that thinks evil of others!
         d. We are to return good for evil - but those who respond 
            quickly with evil, the Lord abhors!
         e. We are to be of one mind - but if we sow discord by 
            murmuring and complaining, we are abominable in God's 
            sight!

CONCLUSION

1. So if we want the Lord to watch over us, if we want Him to heed our 
   prayers, let us be sure to fulfill our duties to each other as 
   brethren as outlined by Peter in verses 8-9

2. In so doing, we will enjoy life to its fullest, and see many good 
   days during our pilgrimage here on earth!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

 

Ownership by Gary Rose

Ownership by Gary Rose

The name of GOD naturally occurring on a turtle? What are the odds of this happening? My first thought was that someone carved GOD on the turtle, but the striations around the name occur on other places of the shell so, this could very well be the “real thing”. But then, WHY would God do this, for HE has other ways of declaring himself.

Consider the following Psalm…

Psalm 50 ( World English Bible )

Psa 50:1, A Psalm by Asaph. The Mighty One, God, Yahweh, speaks, and calls the earth from sunrise to sunset.

Psa 50:2, Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God shines forth.

Psa 50:3, Our God comes, and does not keep silent. A fire devours before him. It is very stormy around him.

Psa 50:4, He calls to the heavens above, to the earth, that he may judge his people:

Psa 50:5, ”Gather my saints together to me, those who have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.”

Psa 50:6, The heavens shall declare his righteousness, for God himself is judge. Selah.

Psa 50:7, ”Hear, my people, and I will speak; Israel, and I will testify against you. I am God, your God.

Psa 50:8, I don’t rebuke you for your sacrifices. Your burnt offerings are continually before me.

Psa 50:9, I have no need for a bull from your stall, nor male goats from your pens.

Psa 50:10, For every animal of the forest is mine, and the livestock on a thousand hills.

There you have it; God declares himself through nature. Look around and see, God is there. Random occurrence could never produce the intricate, intertwining ecosystem of this world, let alone the incredible machine we call a human being. The question still remains- does God sign his name on any of his creation? For the answer, consider the book of Revelation and Jesus’ revelation to the assembly in Philadelphia...

Revelation 3 (WEB)

Rev 3:7, “To the angel of the assembly in Philadelphia write: “He who is holy, he who is true, he who has the key of David, he who opens and no one can shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says these things:

Rev 3:8, “I know your works (behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one can shut), that you have a little power, and kept my word, and didn’t deny my name.

Rev 3:9, Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of those who say they are Jews, and they are not, but lie. Behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.

Rev 3:10, Because you kept my command to endure, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, which is to come on the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

Rev 3:11, I am coming quickly! Hold firmly that which you have, so that no one takes your crown.

Rev 3:12, He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.

Rev 3:13, He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the assemblies.

He writes HIS name in heaven, on those who overcome evil; as for Earth- Who knows? One thing is sure, Ephesians 1 (WEB) says...

Eph 1:2, Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Eph 1:3, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ;

Eph 1:4, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and without blemish before him in love;

Eph 1:5, having predestined us for adoption as children through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his desire,

Eph 1:6, to the praise of the glory of his grace, by which he freely bestowed favor on us in the Beloved,

Eph 1:7, in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

Eph 1:8, which he made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,

Eph 1:9, making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him

Eph 1:10, to an administration of the fullness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, in him;

Eph 1:11, in whom also we were assigned an inheritance, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who works all things after the counsel of his will;

Eph 1:12, to the end that we should be to the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ:

Eph 1:13, in whom you also, having heard the word of the truth, the Good News of your salvation,—in whom, having also believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 1:14, who is a pledge of our inheritance, to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of his glory.

Is being sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise a name? Good question; I am not sure, but my best guess is an emphatic YES! God will explain everything to us in heaven, but by that time we will all have names identifying who we belong to! Problem solved; wait and see!