FAQ questions relating to books we publish
Are Bible references linking dust to man meant to be taken as symbolic?
The answer is yes and no. It depends on the usage within Scripture. For example, Genesis 13:16 tells us, “I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your descendants also can be counted.” In the first part of the verse, the meaning of “the dust of the earth” is modified by the words, “as the" or "like” which precede the phrase. So the phrase is employed as an analogy. In the second half of the verse, all modifiers are absent, so the phrase can be interpreted literally as geological (inorganic) dust of the earth. Further, let’s recall the words of God to Adam: “In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19). Notice, there are no modifiers in this verse. God is telling us that man is literally, dust of the earth/ground that has become organic. This interpretation is not only a scriptural fact, it is also a scientific fact. DNA is dust/stone … dust that is also an organic salt. Think about this: we know that Eve was not literalistically taken from the ground (dust), as evidenced by Scripture's description of her creation from the material of Adam. She was formed from the stem cells in Adam's rib (see the current blog on this website). What is the only thing in human cells that can be scientifically identified as both dust and salt? DNA!
Throughout Scripture, an undeniable link is established between dust, on the one hand, and living organisms on the other. In virtually every instance (maybe all instances) in Scripture where God transforms one material into another, i.e. organic life, the original material transformed is dust/stone. Let’s look at just a few of many passages linking inorganic salt/dust/stone with organic salt/dust/stone. They are: 1) Satan tempted Jesus to turn stones (inorganic dust) into bread (organic dust of DNA). Satan is not an idiot. He would not have tempted Jesus this way unless he knew Jesus could do it (Lk. 4:3, Mt. 4:3); 2) God turned dust into gnats (Ex. 8:16-17); 3) We are told that God could turn stones into children of Abraham, i.e. members of the Chosen nation (Mt. 3:9, Lk. 3:8); The rebuilt Temple (Jesus’ body, per John 2:19-21) is referred to as the ‘cornerstone’ (same substance, but a much larger version of dust) of the Temple (1 Pt. 2:6), and; 4) multiple linkages are made between man and mud/clay, both primarily containing dust mixed with water, (e.g. Is. 64:8; Job 10:9, 33:6; Rom 9:21; and Jn 9:11). [top]
Does science and history prove that God does not exist?
Many atheists claim to present reason-based arguments in their debates about the existence or non-existence of God. They use words like: logical/illogical, reasonable/unreasonable; irrational/rational; and so forth. However, the fact is, any argument centered on proving the universal/absolute non-existence of God is based entirely on fallacious logic. To be sure, an atheist will dress up his comments very elegantly and impressively. He/she will use a little bit of science (much of it speculative or erroneous), a little bit of history (which is usually false on its face or interpreted erroneously), a little bit of sociology, etc. However, all of that window-dressing can’t hide the following fact: it is logically impossible to prove universal or absolute non-existence. That is a fact reasonable atheists agree with. The very best that can be utilized in such a debate is: 1) to quantify evidence supporting God’s existence, or; 2) to argue for a lack of any evidence supporting the existence of God (I’m purposely leaving ‘faith’ out of the equation so that atheists and Christians can converse on a level playing field, so to speak). An atheist’s argument is negatively based; they see no evidence for a God. The other roughly 95% of the world would say they do see evidence for God’s existence. A very popular argument of the atheist is to say this: If there is such a thing as a good God, how come there is so much misery and suffering in the world? This is a negative evidentiary argument that atheists employ hoping you will interpret as proof of non-existence of God (the argument itself is one type of fallacious logic that is also an awkward attempt to disguise a second type of fallacious logic). It is an argument that can only be entertained through a complete lack of knowledge of a God consisting of a Trinity of Three Persons in an eternal family dialogue. In a couple of months, we will show the utter and complete fallacy of that “good God and presence of evil” argument. It will be published on our blog page. In The Science & Theology of Salt in Scripture, Vol. I & II, there is present a good deal of evidence pointing to the existence of God. [top]
I'm a biologist. I've never heard of DNA described as dust. Why?
Let me explain what I believe God means when He uses “salt” in Scripture. In 1953 James Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins published a paper titled “A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid [DNA].” The first sentence states, “We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.).” The sentence is significant. It informs us that DNA is a biological salt and, therefore, also classified as dust.[1]
After losing positively charged hydrogen ions [https://www.stossbooks.com/ion.html#Ion], DNA phosphates (phosphate and sugar comprise the backbone of the DNA double helix — the handrails of the spiral staircase of the double helix) become negatively charged. Consequently, they bind to a cation (a positively charged ion) to achieve electrical neutrality, i.e., Na+ (sodium, an alkali metal). That makes the DNA polymer a “salt” of [Na+] x [DNA-] (sodium phosphate)[2][3]
Physicists Perepelytsya and Volkov describe DNA as a salt of alkali.[4] Russian scientist Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetskii in his book, Unraveling DNA: The Most Important Molecule of Life, tells us DNA, despite being called an acid, is also salt. He further states that calling it acid is an error of the highest magnitude. It could be compared to the error by referring to ordinary table salt as hydrochloric acid.[5]
ENDNOTES:
[1]. Watson, J., Crick, F., Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. Nature 171, 737–738 (1953). https://doi.org/10.1038/171737a0.
[2]. James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA (New York, NY: Touchstone, 2001), 133.
[3]. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA, pp: 80, 88, 160, 204.
[4]. S. M. Perepelytsya and S. N. Volkov, “Counterion vibrations in the DNA low-frequency spectra,” The European Physical Journal E-Soft Matter (Springer Berlin / Heidelberg) 24, 3 (November, 2007).
[5]. Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetskii, Unraveling DNA: The Most Important Molecule of Life trans. Lev Liapin, Revised ed., (Reading, MA: Perseus Publishing, 1997), 60.
[6]. Biologydictionary.net Editors, “Phosphate Group,” Biology Dictionary. Biologydictionary.net, November 04, 2016. https://biologydictionary.net/phosphate-group/, accessed 8/8/2019.