Why Haven't Biologists Connected DNA to Dust in Bible and Why They Should
Atheists Pg > Atheists Bible Challenge
Why Biologists Haven’t Connected DNA to Dust and Salt in the Bible, and Why They Should
by Stephen Michael Leininger
Posted 04/10/2024
Updated 01/31/2025
Table of Contents
DNA is the Geologically Defined Dust of the Earth
DNA in the Context of a Philosophical Substance/EssenceIs Biological “Function” a Philosophical Accident?
Myth and Phenomenology
Carbon, Diamonds, Sodium, and the Winepress
Carbon
Sodium
Examples That Illustrate Differing Connotations
EndnotesJesus and Lot’s Wife: Parallels-with-contrast
Introduction
When I first realized that the salt and dust of the earth in Scripture points directly to DNA, the reaction was one of questioning. Why hadn’t someone in the scientific community (Note that I am not a biologist) already discovered this linkage? After many conversations with biologists, I gradually realized why they have not.
The primary stumbling block to making the connection lies in failing to incorporate three scientific disciplines’ knowledge base and specific terminologies. All are necessary to logically connect dust, stone, salt, and rock in Scripture to human DNA. At a minimum, biology, organic chemistry, and geology are the three disciplines. The first two provide the basis for understanding DNA as organic salt (will be defined later). But without the science of geology, one cannot understand how the DNA substance can also be correctly described as dust, stone, and rock.
Thus, we can surmise that individual biologists and geologists are not entirely culpable for failing to connect the dust/stone to DNA in Scripture. Higher education is more to blame. How so? Biology is not a standard part of most, if not all, geology curricula and vice versa. The same claim is valid concerning theology and philosophy curricula. The consequences of this failure will be made clear as this article progresses. This curriculum deficiency serves as a basis upon which false assumptions are made, leading to a failure to connect primordial matter to DNA.
The Bible writers often use geologically defined words that point to the philosophically defined substance of DNA and its accidents.
This article aims to show scientists specializing in the above-listed disciplines that the Theology of Salt (TOS) is a legitimate and worthwhile tool for understanding the entirety of man in both body and spiritual soul. For theologians, TOS and the hermeneutic of STOSS (The Science & Theology of Salt in Scripture) can support the Bible’s characterization as the most advanced biology book(s) ever written.
When seeking the Truth of the whole man, we must incorporate the various scientific disciplines we have discussed. In a letter to the Director of the Vatican Observatory, Pope St. John Paul II (JPII) wrote:
As we behold the incredible development of scientific research, we detect an underlying movement towards the discovery of levels of law and process which unify created reality and which, at the same time, have given rise to the vast diversity of structures and organisms which constitute the physical and biological, and even the psychological and sociological, worlds. . . .
In the life sciences, too, something similar has happened. Molecular biologists have probed the structure of living material, its functions and its processes of replication. They have discovered that the same underlying constituents serve in the make-up of all living organisms on earth and constitute both the genes and the proteins which these genes code. This is another impressive manifestation of the unity of nature. . . .
[E]ach discipline should continue to enrich, nourish and challenge the other to be more fully what it can be and to contribute to our vision of who we are and who we are becoming. . . .
Does an evolutionary perspective bring any light to bear upon theological anthropology, the meaning of the human Person as the imago Dei, the problem of Christology–and even upon the development of doctrine itself? . . .
It would entail that some theologians, at least, should be sufficiently well[-]versed] in the sciences to make authentic and creative use of the resources that the best-established theories may offer them. . . . Scientists cannot, therefore, hold themselves entirely aloof from the sorts of issues dealt with by philosophers and theologians.[1]
Many examples within the articles and blog posts on the STOSS Books website support that for which JPII advocates. They add validity to his words, “Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.”[2] A word of forewarning. While I have tried to make the text of this article as understandable to as many readers as possible, I’m sure I have achieved more or less success. The target audience of this piece and the nature of its goal make it challenging to avoid in-depth discussions using scientific terminology that describes profound scientific concepts.
It should also be noted that the word “man,” as it is used in this article, should be interpreted consistent with Genesis 1:27, which reads, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Three Incorrect Assumptions to Which Some Biologists Cling
Based on interactions with biologists, holding one or more of three incorrect assumptions hinders the ability to connect DNA with references to dust/salt/stone in Scripture. The three assumptions are: 1) There are no minerals (dust) in DNA; 2) Nothing in DNA possesses a crystalline structure; and 3) DNA consists of only covalent bonds, which an antagonist may errantly believe is not capable of the ionic bonding (in their view) necessary to characterize DNA as “dust of the earth.” This article will address all three claims, each of which is false to one degree or another.
I agree with any biologist who advocates valid bio-scientific principles regarding the utility of the elemental atoms described through the chemistry of DNA and its constituent accidental components. I understand how ionic, polar covalent, non-polar covalent, metallic, and hydrogen chemical bonds contribute to understanding the functional hows and whys of the individual elements within and around the DNA molecule.
However, without incorporating the philosophical underpinnings of the DNA substance, which can only be achieved through an adequate understanding of the geological and biological sciences, the chemistry of bio-function falls short of achieving a complete comprehension of man in the image and likeness of God.
The effort to achieve such an understanding is further complicated because the organic and inorganic solids/minerals within the body are defined differently depending on the scientific discipline from which the definition is taken. This difference leads to the discussion of the first false claim.Claim #1: There are no minerals in DNA
DNA is the Geologically Defined Dust of the Earth
The DNA molecule contains some elements of the periodic table that are components of its structure. Various other elemental atoms can bind to that structure, which affects the structure’s shape and how the molecule functions. Phosphate is an example of that which is part of DNA’s structure. It is a component of the DNA backbone, i.e., the side rails to which the “rungs” of the DNA ladder are bound. Sodium and magnesium are two elements that form separate ionic bonds to a phosphate group within the DNA backbone. Both elements, when in compound form, affect DNA’s architecture and function.
When in compound form, all three of the above-listed elements fulfill geology’s definition of a mineral (defined later). Additionally—and of vital importance—a fourth element exists in the DNA molecule. That element is carbon. It is the biological dust of the earth par excellence. It will be discussed in greater detail as the article progresses.
Magnesium is present in the nucleotide Adenine (Adenine Tri-Phosphate—ATP) base and is designated by the letter “A”. ATP is a part of the rungs of the ladder of the DNA double helix. Ben McFarland tells us, “Magnesium (Mg+2) fits perfectly between the Oxygens on two adjacent Phosphates in ATP.”[3]
Combining two geologically defined minerals (e.g., sodium-phosphate and magnesium-phosphate) bonded to the same DNA molecule means the DNA substance, which is distinct from its structure, can be geologically and, therefore, correctly described as dust/stone/salt of the earth. We often hear DNA referred to as a salt. What is a chemical salt? According to Encyclopedia Britannica, “A salt consists of the positive ion (cation) of a base[4] and the negative ion (anion) of an acid. The reaction between an acid and a base is called a neutralization reaction.”[5]
At this point, without incorporating philosophy, a misunderstanding may occur. The DNA molecule is an acid when only its structure is considered. As such, the phosphate possesses a -1 charge. When the DNA substance and accidents are considered, it is not an acid because the phosphate is neutralized by a sodium atom. The reason for this will be addressed more thoroughly in other sections.
McFarland explains a chemical acid:
This is why both DNA and RNA end with “A” for “acid,” because a negatively charged phosphate is an acid. An acid is something that has shed a positively charged hydrogen in water, leaving a negative charge behind.[6]
Put another way, only the naked DNA structure sans any metallic bonding can be described as an acid.
Significance of the Distinction of Rock to Dust/Stone in the Bible
The human body is made from geologically defined “dust of the earth”—especially the salt/dust of DNA. Microbiologist William Whitman tells us that DNA, absent any other biological systems that make for a living cell, is nothing more than a “rock.”[7]
Not being a geologist or theologian, Whitman can be forgiven for his inaccurate wording, i.e., using “rock” to refer to DNA. His choice of rock when undertaking biblical exegesis can lead to faulty interpretation of certain passages. Why? In ancient Hebrew and Greek, “rock” (Heb. sur, sela¢; Gk. petra) refers to the original rock structure from which different-sized particles become separate stones (Heb. ¢eben; Gk. lithos), aka dust. The process through which this separation occurs can be erosion, earthquakes, etc. Thus, DNA is not a rock. Instead, it is a bonded collection of two or more dust particles.[8]
Following is an example of inaccurate or incomplete interpretations that can occur as a result of failing to factor in the scriptural hermeneutic through which rock and stone are interpreted. In the hermeneutic of STOSS, references to Jesus’ mortal physical body versus his resurrected glorified physical (but no longer mortal) body can be adequately interpreted.
In John, Jesus’ risen body is characterized as the cornerstone of the rebuilt Temple. The word “cornerstone” is used because he is the foundation upon which his new Church would be built. His entire glorified physical body is the entire rebuilt stone temple (John 2:19-21); The stone temple that would be so completely destroyed that not one stone would stand upon another (Mark 13:1-2, Matthew 24:1-2). The distinction between the stone temple and the “rock” upon which it would be built must also be understood.
Peter tells us, “Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5, see also Ephesians 2:20-22).
According to Fulton Sheen, the Church is the eternal continuation of the Incarnation, prolonging the theandric actions.[9] Through Baptism, we are made members of the Mystical Body of Christ and members of the “holy priesthood” through which we can make “sacrifices acceptable to God” on the altar located directly above the sacred rock.
Paul tells us, “For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:4-5). It is in the context of the Mystical Body of Christ and the New Covenant Temple of Jesus’ resurrected physical body, that we are to interpret the word “stone” in Scripture. So, how are we to understand the word rock in the Bible?
In Exodus, we read, “Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb [the Mountain—formed of Rock—of God]; and you shall strike the rock [emphasis added], and water shall come out of it, that the people may drink” (Exodus 17:6). The temple was described as being on the top of a rock mountain (e.g., Genesis 12:8; Exodus 3:12, 4:27, 19:12; Deuteronomy 9:21, Wisdom 9:8; Exodus 43:12).
In Isaiah, it is written:
It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob[10]; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion [11] shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isaiah 2:2-3).
At the time of this Old Covenant biblical event, Jesus had not yet taken on mortal form. The Son of God was still with the Father in Heaven. Hence, the proper use of the word “rock” rather than stone from which living water would flow. Compare this to what Jesus told Peter. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, “[Y]ou are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” Peter has been appointed as the visible head of the rebuilt Temple, which occurs at the resurrection of Jesus’ glorified body. Peter (and any subsequent pope) is the visible head of the Mystical Body of Christ.
However, it is only after Jesus’ Ascension to the Father that his glorified humanity—both body and spiritual soul—is fully united with the three Persons of the Trinity in a never-ending dialogue of Truth and Love.[12] That Trinitarian unity in the Holy Spirit is when the Church becomes built on “this rock” in Jesus’ own words. Ezekiel’s dream of the rebuilt temple (Ezekiel 40-47, but especially 47:1-12) is a link that helps interpret that link between Moses’ and Matthew’s passages.
Just as there were never two places in biblical history where God simultaneously dwelled in a special way, i.e., tabernacled. In the OT, the Temple/Tabernacle was the dwelling place of God in physical creation. John 1:14 literally translates into, “The Word became flesh and tabernacled [emphasis added] among us.”[13] There were never two temples existing at one time. The location of the temple and each rebuilt temple was built over the exact same location, the sacred rock.
According to Barnabas Meistermann:
It is generally admitted that the “sacred rock” in the centre of the Mosque of Omar formed the foundation of the altar of holocausts in the Temple of Jerusalem. On this hill, according to an ancient tradition, Abraham made ready to sacrifice his son Isaac; here, near the threshing-floor of Ornan, the exterminating angel restored his sword to its scabbard; and on this threshing-floor, which according to custom was situated at the highest point [mountain], David erected an altar to the Lord.
If this prominent rock was constantly spared at the various rebuildings of the platform it must have been because of its associations. Moreover, it corresponds to all the requirements of Exodus (20:24 sq.) for the altar of holocausts. It is a limestone rock [emphasis added], unhewn and irregular, fifty-eight feet long, by forty-five wide, and standing three or four feet above the ground. Furthermore, in its upper almost level surface there is a hole whereby it is believed the blood and the water of the ablutions flowed into the cavity beneath to be carried off by a subterranean conduit to the valley of Cedron. The Mishna (Yoma, II, i) asserts that under the altar of holocausts there was a canal of this kind. This point admitted, the “sacred rock” will serve as a mark to discover the exact site of the house of Jehovah, because the latter opened to the east opposite the altar of holocausts[14] and consequently west of the court of the priests which contained the altar.[15]
Scott Hahn writes:
The liturgy of the new covenant had been foreshadowed in the rituals of the old. The Gospels make an explicit connection between the Mass and the Passover meal (Lk 22:15). The Epistle to the Hebrews sees the Mass in light of the Temple’s animal sacrifices (Hebrew 13:10). Many modern scholars have noted parallels between the Mass and the most commonly offered sacrifice of Jesus’ day: the thank-offering (in Hebrew, todah). The todah was a sacrificial meal of bread and wine[16], shared with his friends, given in thanksgiving for God’s deliverance. The Talmud records the ancient rabbis’ teaching that, when the Messiah has come, “all sacrifices will cease except the todah sacrifice. This will never cease in all eternity.” When the Jews translated their Scriptures into Greek, they rendered the word todah as eucharistia, the word from which we get “Eucharist.”[17]
Where is the only place Levitical priests could offer sacrifices to God? It is the temple made of stone in Jerusalem: the resurrected dust, stone-of-the-earth glorified body of Jesus (John 2:19-21). A distinction would be helpful. The stone temple is where offerings are made. But the offering is presented to the Father on the altar, below which is the sacred rock. Upon this rock is built the Church, i.e., the Mystical Body of Christ. The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Catholic Church.[18]
While the stone describes the Mystical Body of Christ, the rock is the altar of holocaust upon which Christ eternally offers up his body, blood, soul, and divinity to the Father within the Trinitarian dialogue. It must be noted that the Church does not teach that Christ is repeatedly sacrificed on the Cross. Instead, the entire Church is made present at the one—and only one—bloody sacrifice.[19]
Switching the focus back to dust of the earth, here are some Bible passages informing us that God can use dust to create organic entities composed of primordial dust/stone:
· God tells us he can turn dust into gnats (Exodus 8:16-17),· Satan tempts Jesus to turn stones into bread (Luke 4:3; Matthew 4:3.). Satan is evil but not stupid. He wouldn’t waste time tempting Jesus to do what he couldn’t do,· We are told that God possessed the power to command stones to become (rational) children of Abraham (Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8), and· At one particularly prophetic event, God did not simply say he could do it but did it. At the Wedding Feast of Cana (John 2:1-11), Jesus turns inorganic water (ritually pure water by Jewish Law)[20] into water containing a living organism, i.e., wine. He doesn’t simply make a palatable wine; he makes the best/good wine. He controls the genetic function of the grapes, rendering them “good” for producing wine.
Note: Water used for ritual purification (e.g., water within the six stone jars at Cana) had to be ritually and literally clean. Therefore, nothing organic (cf. Leviticus 11:36) could have been present in the water prior the miracle. The organic fruit of the vine was either made ex nihilo or from particles of geological stone/dust within the six stone jars.
Inorganic Solids in the Earth and the Human Body
James D. Watson describes the elemental solids that bind to the DNA phosphate backbone as inorganic ions. In the context of DNA, he was probably referring to ions such as sodium (Na+1), phosphate (PO4-3)[21], and magnesium (Mg+2). He also writes that the sodium ions neutralize the acidity of the phosphate group, which contributes to the structure and function of the DNA backbone.[22] As such, the compounds became inorganic solids.
Definition of Minerals
Following the National Institute of Health (NIH) guidelines, healthcare professionals view minerals as external elements taken into the body via foods, supplements, liquids we drink, etc. Said minerals help maintain an existing body’s proper function.[23] However, unlike the medical profession’s definition, germline DNA is not taken into a body, per se. The newly fertilized egg is not taken into the body. It is a new body.[24] More precisely, it is that which contains a complete set of biological instructions from which to build a unique person’s body. It is a gift of love expressed between a man and a woman within a covenant of salt relationship. And no, it is not part of the mother’s body. It is a mother and father’s child temporarily residing as a guest in the mother’s body. The mother’s body does not consist of four arms, two hearts, two brains, or, more importantly, two spiritual souls.
Parents co-create by providing the genetic material with which a human body is formed. Into that fertilized egg, God breathes a spiritual soul. Starting from the zygote, it continually builds that body. At the moment of conception, the new Person is no less in the image and likeness of God than it is at the age of seventy-two. If one loses a leg, are they rendered less of a human person? Jeremiah writes, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born, I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5).
Some scientists fail to grasp this concept because scientific empiricism fails when that which cannot be physically observed and quantified, neither through the naked senses nor through scientific instrumentation, is the subject. God could not form what He did not already know. An image is first formed in the mind before an artist paints a picture or sculpts a statue. And if God knew, by what means did He form it? Answer: By breathing in the Breath of Life, the substantial form of the body.
The NIH lists calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride, and sulfur as macrominerals. Iron, manganese, copper, iodine, zinc, cobalt, fluoride, and selenium are identified as trace minerals.[25] But how does geology, not the NIH, define minerals?
According to Callan Bentley et al., a mineral has four key properties.[26] They are:
1. A naturally occurring inorganic* solid,2. A chemical composition, i.e., bonded elements, that a chemical formula can define,3. An orderly and repeating crystalline structure and,4. Remains solid at room temperature.
*It is important to note that Geology defines the elements of the periodic table as inorganic. However, the life sciences define inorganic and organic differently. See below.
Quoting Professor Eric Galbraith, Maddy Chapman writes: “In general, organic compounds include most of the molecules that contain carbon atoms that are attached to hydrogen and/or other carbon atoms.”[27]
Continuing, Chapman writes:
Inorganic compounds, meanwhile, are not derived from living things and do not contain carbon-hydrogen bonds. Therefore, sodium chloride (NaCl), ammonia (NH3), and calcium chloride (CaCl) are all inorganic compounds. . . . Around 99 percent [of the human body] is made up of just six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Around 65 percent of our mass comes from oxygen, 18.5 percent from carbon, and 9.5 percent from hydrogen.[27B]
The following are inorganic solids in the earth’s crust and the human body. Each is listed in the periodic table. When the atom of an element bonds to another of earth’s solids, it can be identified as a geologically defined mineral, matching all four of the properties listed above. While not checking every element in the periodic table, I have checked enough to confidently assert that every element in its solid state and bound to at least one other element possesses a crystalline structure.
In the list below, each element is followed by the percentage of the earth’s crust it represents.
They are: magnesium, 2.1%; potassium, 2.6%; sodium, 2.8%; calcium, 3.6%; iron, 5.0%; aluminum, 8.1%; phosphorus, less than 1%; and Silicon, 27.7%. Knowing how much is present in the earth’s crust, the question arises: How much is present in the human body? For a 180-pound human, ~47 pounds of these seven inorganic solids, i.e., dust-of-the-earth, are contained in the human body.[28]
The NIH classifies all the above elements as minerals. Using the NIH’s definition, it could be claimed that the DNA substance contains at least four minerals, i.e., sodium, magnesium, phosphate, and carbon. However, a potential problem exists with the validity of NIH’s classification compared to geology’s definition of minerals. This potential problem exists because the NIH fails to specify the assumptions used as the basis for identifying each element as a mineral and, therefore, DNA as the dust of the earth;
Is the NIH assuming that, for example, a single sodium atom is a mineral? In this case, absent some type of chemical bonding, the sodium atom does not meet geology’s definition of a mineral. Nor would any other element, for that matter. This problem is because a single atom cannot possess a crystalline structure. A single atom has the potentiality to be part of a crystalline structure, but only compounds can possess such structures.
Is the NIH assuming the sodium atom(s) are chemically bonded to other elements? An example could be sodium-phosphate (Na3PO4). As such, the sodium ions of the sodium-phosphate compound can be accurately described as components of a mineral.
It should be noted that some differences exist when the phosphate molecule is a component of the DNA backbone. The PO4 molecule is identified as a phosphate group in such case. The net charge of the phosphate group is –1, not –3. In this case, only one atom of Na+1 is needed to neutralize the DNA molecule. Even though only one sodium atom is ionically bonded to the covalently bonded phosphate group, it is a compound and, therefore, accurately classified as a mineral.
Some minerals are composed of multiple atoms of a single element bonded together. Note that I did not say a single atom of a particular element. These types of minerals are called native minerals.
Common native minerals within the metals category are gold (Au), silver (Ag), copper (Cu), and platinum (Pt). Metals can only form ionic bonds, including ionic bonds to polar covalent molecules. Those falling within the non-metals category are diamonds (C), graphite (C), and sulfur (S). Non-metals are capable of forming polar and non-polar covalent bonds. The semi-metals (aka metalloids) include bismuth (Bi), antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), tellurium (Te), and selenium (Se) are capable of ionic and covalent bonds.[29]
Carbon is particularly interesting, as will be shown as this article progresses.
Carbon Alone Proves DNA is Dust of the Earth
In the human organism, carbon atoms covalently bonded to other elemental atoms, especially other carbon atoms, is the dust of DNA par excellence.
Carbon can form approximately eight different crystalline rock structures (called allotropes) by forming covalent structures entirely composed of carbon atoms. Three examples of such are 1) diamond, 2) graphite, and 3) Lonsdaleite (hexagonal diamond as opposed to the tetrahedral diamond). It is crucial to keep in mind that living organisms are carbon-based. This classification would not be an accurate description if only a small fraction of the body contained carbon-carbon compounds.
It’s no wonder that a 180-pound human contains ~41 pounds[30] of structural and functional/messaging (i.e., proteins) carbon atoms in the body? Carbon atoms in the body weigh almost as much as the seven other main elements (i.e., magnesium, potassium, sodium, calcium, iron, aluminum, phosphorus, and silicon) combined, equaling ~47 lbs. Combining all eight elements, a 180-pound human contains ~88 pounds of dust/stone compounds. Likely, most of those elements are an integral part of the DNA substance and/or the products thereof.
Carbon is classified by geology as both a native mineral and rock when covalently bonded to other carbon atoms.[31] The size of the diamond/graphite rock grows by covalently bonding to other carbon atoms in its vicinity. If DNA is composed primarily of the dust/stone/salt of the earth, how much DNA and, therefore, carbon is in the body?
There are approximately six billion nucleotides in every molecule of DNA. Multiply that by the twenty-eight to thirty-six trillion cells in the adult body, depending on sex. The result of that equation can be described as a phenomenal amount of carbon dust of the earth in the body.[32]
Carbon atoms are essential for the overall structure and function of DNA and the components therein. The five bonded carbon atoms in the deoxyribose sugar component of the DNA backbone are critical to the structure of the DNA molecule. The following describes the bonding within the five-carbon ring: the 1-prime carbon connects to the nitrogenous base; The 2-prime carbon bonds to the hydrogen atom, which distinguishes deoxyribose from ribose (found in RNA); The 3-prime carbon forms part of the phosphodiester bond linking nucleotides; The 4-prime carbon is part of the sugar ring structure, and; The 5-prime carbon participates in the phosphodiester bond that connects to the DNA phosphate group.[33]
As for the nitrogenous bases, adenine and guanine possess a structure of two carbon-nitrogen rings. Cytosine and thymine are pyrimidines that have a single carbon-nitrogen ring structure.[34] To sum up, there is a lot of carbon dust of the earth in DNA structure alone. That will be further elaborated in the following section.
Claim #2: There is Nothing in DNA that is Crystalline
Two points, when combined, help to illustrate the magnitude of error in the claim that there is nothing crystalline in either structural DNA or its functional aggregates (e.g., proteins).
First Point, if every DNA molecule, including mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), were laid end-to-end, it would stretch approximately 6.2 billion kilometers (3.85 billion miles). To help put that figure in perspective, 3.85 billion miles is enough to complete more than twenty-one roundtrips to the sun and back.[35] That is an astronomical number of crystalline compounds in the human body! And it doesn’t even enter into the equation for all of the crystalline components of proteins, amino acids, or elements ionically bonded to the DNA structure.
Second Point, according to the British Society for Cell Biology:
Water is the single most abundant chemical found in living things. Virtually all chemical reactions in life processes take place in solution in water. . . . Water is present both inside and outside cells. In the body of a mammal, for example, although it is about 70% water by weight, about 46% (approximately 2/3) is inside living cells, and about 23% (approx. 1/3) is present outside cells in blood plasma and other body fluids. [36]
So, what is the significance of the presence of water within the human cell? Cell biologists specializing in the role of water on cellular function have made significant advances in that area. It has been discovered that every solid surface within the cell, including its structural components and other macromolecules, is surrounded by a structured hydration shell of between thirty to one hundred layers thick of bonded water molecules.[37] They define a substantial/mechanical solid surface as one having a molecular weight of about two thousand Daltons.[38] It should be noted that biologists, in general, do not, to my knowledge, attach a minimum molecular weight requirement to the definition of an organic/inorganic solid.
The topic of biological water provides another example of how the differing scientific disciplines work together to help interpret the polyvalent depth of meaning in Scripture. In Romans 8:23, we are told that our body waits for its redemption. That redemption doesn’t wait until the Resurrection for the body to be completely purified. The process begins now—more on that when the whole man is later discussed.
Structured water plays a critical role in cell biology,[39] including but not limited to the functional consequences of water-induced protein folding. [40] Without proper folding, a protein cannot deliver its chemical message to its intended target cell. Protein unfolding results in either the cessation of the protein’s function or it causes the protein to malfunction.[41]
A protein surrounded by a stabilized structure of water (high hydrogen bonding) will be less likely to unfold. In contrast, a less stable water structure would allow for more protein flexibility and an increased possibility of unfolding.[42] Scientific research increasingly points to the notion that even major proteins’ shape (folding) conversions result from structured water within the protein’s environment.[43][44]
Monoamine oxidase is one example of a protein’s impact on the body’s redemption or lack thereof. It is a protein that degrades amine neurotransmitters, such as dopamine (a hormone primarily involved in addictions) and norepinephrine (a stress hormone involved in the fight-or-flight response.[45] Biological water’s role in purifying/redeeming the protein’s expression via folding or unfolding could be an example of Romans 8:23.
Combining points one and two, we can see why some scientists describe the living organism as a liquid crystalline continuum. Using polarized light microscopy, the same technique geologists use to examine rock crystals, it has been discovered that living organisms “give brilliant dynamic liquid crystal displays in colours of the rainbow. The colours depend on the coherent alignment of molecular dipoles in liquid crystal mesophases.”[46] Imagine all biological water dancing together with all the molecules in the entire body, creating a quantum jazz of life coherent beyond our wildest imaginings. A dance that’s continually improvised from one moment to the next.[47]
Returning to the original topic of this section, I strongly recommend that any scientist involved with cellular or organic biology read Microbiologist Ben McFarland’s book, A World From Dust: How the Periodic Table Shaped Life. Through it, scientists can begin to appreciate his words: “Biology and geology meet through chemistry. . . . when life and rocks interact.”[48]
Every element listed by the NIH as being substantially (not meaning philosophically) present in the body possesses a crystalline structure. Calcium[49], phosphorus[50], potassium[51], sodium[52], chloride[53], magnesium[54], iron[55], zinc[56], iodine[57], sulfur[58], cobalt[59], copper[60], fluoride[61],manganese[62], and selenium[63] are, when bonded to other elements, crystalline minerals essential for health.[64]
Proteins and Other Crystalline Structures of DNA
As stated above, compounds containing sodium, magnesium, and phosphate are crystalline in structure. Does science back this up? Watson et al. proved through X-ray crystallography that the DNA molecule is composed of crystalline organic and inorganic solids.[65][66]
Richard Sinden writes:
The structure of B-form DNA, the most common form, was originally deduced from X-ray diffraction analysis of the sodium salt of DNA fibers.[67]
McFarland says, “Biology and geology meet through chemistry.”[68] Through geology, we can finally see that DNA and other biological components are biblical salt, stone, and dust of the earth. Let’s examine that further.
Minerals (i.e., dust/stone of the earth) That Form Non-DNA Crystalline Structures
Up to this point we have focused almost exclusively on structural DNA as the dust of the earth to which Scripture intentionally points. Several different words in Scripture point to DNA. For example, dust, salt, stone, rock, and clay directly or indirectly point to DNA. However, each word carries with it a particular connotation. Other non-DNA components of the biological body also fit the description: dust of the earth. This section will point out some of those components.
The following types of organic compounds (i.e., containing more than one bonded carbon and/or hydrogen atom) exist in living substances. This discussion will be limited to, A) carbohydrates, B) lipids, C) proteins, and D) bones.
A. Carbohydrates contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms in their molecules. The common trend of their chemical composition is Cn(H2O)n, where N=# of atoms. In this compound, the number of carbons bound to other carbons is between four and six, thus constituting carbohydrates as crystalline dust of the earth.B. Lipids are made up of one alcohol molecule and three molecules of fatty acid. The three fatty acids in one fat molecule may be identical or different. The number of carbon atoms in fatty acid varies from four to twenty-four, but it is always an even number. Among several other uses, lipids are structural components of cell membranes. Once again, the bonded carbon atoms make lipids crystalline dust of the earth.C. Proteins consist of a series of linked amino acids. Twenty-one different amino acids can be linked. Every amino acid contains between two and eleven bonded carbon atoms. That makes every protein, which consists of numerous amino acids serially linked to other amino acids, structured crystalline dust of the earth.[69] How many unique structures of proteins (proteoforms) are created from the estimated 20,300 coding human genes? The answer to that question varies from 20,000 to several million depending upon what is included in the definition of proteome.[70] How many total protein molecules exist in a single cell? A meaningful answer to that question is hard to find. A study published in 2018 provides a number for a yeast cell. The number was forty-two million protein molecules in a single yeast cell.[71] I have seen a calculated estimate of 3x1013 (thirty trillion) on biology.stackexchange, but I can’t vouch for its accuracy. One thing is sure: proteins account for a massive quantity of bonded carbon atoms produced in the human body hourly.D. Bones: There are two principal components of bone.Collagen contains the specific amino acids glycine, proline, hydroxyproline, and arginine.[74] Glycine (C2H5NO2) contains two bonded carbon atoms. Proline (C5H9NO2) contains five bonded carbon atoms. Hydroxyproline (C5H9NO3) contains five bonded carbon atoms. Arginine (C6H14N4O2) contains six bonded carbon atoms.Individually, three polypeptide strands are in a triple helix structure. Each chain contains over 1,400 amino acids, which translates into over 4,200 amino acids in one collagen molecule. Assuming a calculated average of 4.5 carbons per amino acid, a single collagen molecule would contain 18,900 bonded carbon atoms per collagen molecule.Collagen accounts for 30% of your body’s protein. It is present in skin, bones, tendons, ligaments, muscles, arteries, cartilage, organs, tissue of the placenta, cornea of your eyes, and hair.The second principal component of bone is calcium phosphate. According to Stanislas Euw et al., “Recent research has now been shown to prove that the surface of mature bone mineral [emphasis added] particles is not in the form of hydroxyapatite but rather in the form of hydrated amorphous calcium phosphate.”[75] In other words, calcium-phosphate fits the geological definition for dust of the earth.
Claim #3: DNA Consists Entirely of Covalent Bonds and is Absent the Ionic Bonding Necessary to be Identified as Dust of the Earth
This section addresses the claim that covalent bonds in the DNA molecule prevent it from being described as the dust of the earth because they do not possess ionic bonds. To begin with, a brief description of the different types of chemical bonding within the body would be in order. The types are:
1). Ionic bonds:Similar to magnets, “Negatively and positively charged particles attract each other. Protons (positively charged) attract electrons (negatively charged) in atoms. Similarly, positively charged cations attract negatively charged anions, producing ionic bonds in minerals;”[76]2). Metallic bonds:“[In] metallic bonding, many atoms share the same electrons. Individual atoms give up their valence electrons and the delocalized electrons are free to move and interact with all the positively charged ions in the structure. Metallic bonding, is especially common in minerals involving transition metals [i.e., gold, silver, and copper].”[77]3). Covalent bonds:“The sharing of pairs of electrons between atoms produces a covalent bond. If the sharing is complete, the bond is 100% covalent. This type of bonding is present for diatomic gases such as N2, but does not occur in common minerals except for diamond.”[78]
3a). Polar covalent bonds:“In pure covalent bonds, the electrons are shared equally. In polar covalent bonds, the electrons are shared unequally, as one atom exerts a stronger force of attraction on the electrons than the other. The ability of an atom to attract a pair of electrons in a chemical bond is assigned an electronegativity value. The difference in electronegativity values between two atoms determines” how strong the electrostatic attraction between the elements will be.[79]
4). Hydrogen bonds:“When hydrogen forms a polar covalent bond with an atom of higher electronegativity, the region around the hydrogen will have a fractional positive charge (termed δ+). When this fractional positive charge encounters a partial negative charge (termed δ-) from another electronegative atom to which the hydrogen is not bound, and it is presented to that negative charge in a suitable orientation, a special kind of interaction called a hydrogen bond can form. While chemists are still debating the exact nature of the hydrogen bond . . . we like to conceive of it as a weak electrostatic interaction between the δ+ of the hydrogen and the δ- charge on an electronegative atom. . . . Hydrogen bonds are common in biology both within and between all types of biomolecules. Hydrogen bonds are also critical interactions between biomolecules and their solvent, water.”[80]Bonding in most minerals and, therefore, rocks are neither 100% ionic, 100% covalent, nor 100% metallic. It is usually a mixture, though certain types of mineral rock approach 100%. Silicates are about 50% ionic and 50% covalent. Carbon bonds are entirely covalent. Halite (NaCl) and other alkali halides are nearly 100% ionic.[81]
In light of the above, let’s address some biologists’ views that structural DNA can’t be dust of the earth because of the exclusive presence of covalent bonding within the structural DNA molecule and the total exclusion of electrostatic/ionic bonding. First, this claim is overly broad and, therefore, incorrect. It ignores the possibility of polar covalent and hydrogen bonds.
According to Mike Blaber et al., a false dichotomy exists relative to ionic versus covalent bonds:
The covalent-ionic continuum described above is certainly an improvement over the old covalent-versus-ionic dichotomy that existed only in the textbook and classroom, but it is still only a one-dimensional view of a multidimensional world, and thus a view that hides more than it reveals. The main thing missing is any allowance for the type of bonding that occurs between more pairs of elements than any other: metallic bonding. Thus instead of [a] one-dimension chart. . . . a triangular diagram [can be drawn] whose corners represent the three extremes of “pure” covalent, ionic, and metallic bonding.Intermetallic compounds are rarely even mentioned in introductory courses, but since most of the elements are metals, there are a lot of them, and many play an important role in metallurgy. In metallic bonding, the valence electrons lose their association with individual atoms; they form what amounts to a mobile “electron fluid” that fills the space between the crystal lattice positions occupied by the atoms, (now essentially positive ions.) The more readily this electron delocalization occurs, the more “metallic” the element.[82]
The exclusively covalent assumption contradicts philosophical truth as it applies to the substance of DNA versus its structure and the accidental elements that bind to that structure. In reality, each constituent component of the DNA substance can be bound through various types of chemical binding.
By way of illustration, silicates are about equally comprised of ionic and covalent bonds.[83] Does that then mean that the silicate minerals are only dust in the part of the rock that is ionically bonded and cease to be minerals in the covalently bonded sections? That would violate the tenets of both philosophy and geology.
That is further complicated by the presence of hydrogen and polar covalent bonds within some minerals and rocks. This bonding is due to the comparative electronegativity values of adjacent elements, leading to various degrees of electrostatic attraction. According to Layne Morsch et al.:
There is no clear-cut division between covalent and ionic bonds. In a pure non-polar covalent bond, the electrons are held on average exactly half way between the atoms. In a polar bond, the electrons have been dragged slightly towards one end. How far does this dragging have to go before the bond counts as ionic? There is no real answer to that. Sodium chloride is typically considered an ionic solid, but even here the sodium has not completely lost control of its electron. . . . Covalent bonds form when electrons are shared between atoms and are attracted by the nuclei of both atoms.[84]
The Whole Man: Understood in Light of Biology, Philosophy, Theology, and Scripture
The title of this article is “Why Biologists Haven’t Connected DNA to Dust and Salt in the Bible: And Why They Should.” Technically, the word “biologist” in the title could appropriately be replaced by a couple of optional words. The replacement could be theologian, geologist, or exegete.
The rest of this article addresses the second part of that title, i.e., why they should make the connection. Biology, organic chemistry, geology, theology, and philosophy provide a competent basis for understanding the whole man, not just his biology—for understanding man created in the image and likeness of God. Failing to incorporate these disciplines reduces the endeavor to know and understand man as nothing more than a pursuit of a degree in veterinary medicine.
According to the Catechism, “It is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man [spiritually, philosophically, and biologically] truly becomes clear.”[85]
As written by the Council of Chalcedon in 451: “The Church declared that the two natures, i.e., the Divine and the rational human natures of Christ are joined in “one [P]erson [emphasis added] and one hypostasis.”[86]
John Hardon writes that hypostasis means one substance. The term hypostatic union was adopted at the fifth general council at Constantinople in 533. The Doctrine was promulgated in answer to the Nestorian error of a merely accidental, as opposed to a substantial, union of the two perfect natures, i.e., God and Man.[87]
The Son of God is not two Persons, one person who is Divine and a second person who is human. The Son of God is one Person with two natures hypostatically united. Sheen states that the actions of the Mystical Body of Christ, i.e., the Church, are the actions of Christ. Since acts/actions are attributed to the Person, not the nature (Actiones sunt suppositorum), any act/intervention by the incarnate Jesus is also a direct intervention in material creation by God.[88] That is why every redemptive act of Jesus in his humanity is attributable to the infinite and eternal Personhood of the Son of God.
To understand the whole man as a body and spiritual soul composite, we must embark on that endeavor through the competent eyes of a biologist, philosopher, theologian, and scriptural exegete.
Philosophical Component of the Whole Man
Using only the NIH’s definition of minerals, we could mistakenly conclude that man is not formed from the dust of the earth. Instead, believing that the body’s correct functionality is maintained by the intake of the elements of the earth, but not necessarily made from them. What is missing from their definition is any consideration of the nature/essence, i.e., the “is” of those inorganic and organic solids and the most proximate and immediate source from which they came.
Geologists define those solids in the context of the element’s nature/substance, as defined by the philosophical disciplines. In the context of geologically defined primordial matter, a nature/essence that existed long before any organic life existed on earth.
DNA in the Context of a Philosophical Substance/Essence
When talking about physical DNA, it is essential to distinguish between its substance (aka essence, nature) and its structure. The DNA structure is not the same as its substance. The structure is an accident of the molecular substance. We know this because the DNA molecule’s dimensive qualities constantly change.[89]
From a philosophical standpoint, we could say that the DNA Substance can be described as a kind of thing that provides a complete set of biological instructions for building and maintaining a complete living organism. This definition considers the existence of multiple structures (i.e., A-DNA, B-DNA, and Z-DNA) and associated functions of DNA, all of which fit the above philosophical definition for the DNA molecule.
Is Biological “Function” a Philosophical Accident?
To a Substance inhere numerous Accidents. Joseph Magee states (emphasis added),
Accidents are the modifications that substance undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that is each substance. Accidents only exist when they are accidents of some substance.[90]
Aristotle lists nine types of accidents. Examples are dimensive quantity, quality, action/function, place, and disposition (the arrangement of parts).[91] As used in this article, “substance” and “accident” are meant to be understood philosophically unless otherwise specified.
An example of this can be seen by looking at the type of thing we identify as a house. In the context of substance, a house can contain different structural components that inhere to the substance. For example, load-bearing pillars are materials designed explicitly to support specific load ranges. Additional components can be employed to support the roof and stop it from blowing away or collapsing. The structure may consist of one or more levels. Bricks can be added to the house to protect the structure from high winds. The substantial house cannot change. Only the accidents of the house are capable of such.
According to Joseph Komonchak et al.,
In their philosophical usage, form and matter are correlative terms, combining to explain the underlying structure of the changing material beings of our experience. . . . In their widest general sense, form and matter are two of the most basic and indispensable terms for speaking about our everyday experience of the world. Form signifies the shapes, patterns, structures, or designs of things, whether natural or artificial, i.e., in general that which determines something to be such and such, to be this kind of thing. Matter signifies the “material,” that is out of which something is made, that which is capable of receiving a form or pattern, i.e., in general, that which is determinable by form.[92]
Biological function can be more appropriately categorized as an accident of the substance. That an organism can run very fast doesn’t define its substance, but only as an accident of its substance. That quality probably only applies to a limited number of those with the same substance. That being the case, a person’s ability to run faster or slower does not affect their substance as a rational human being.
All chemical reactions between the various elements of prime matter, of which substantial DNA is composed, are classified as accidents. The expression of genes within the DNA molecule is subject to change through, for example, epigenetic plasticity. As such, they cannot be classified as anything other than accidents of the DNA substance.
In light of the above, the periodic table elements sodium (Na+1) and magnesium (Mg+2), while ionically bound to the DNA structure, are classified as accidental matter that inheres to its substance. Their bonding to the phosphate groups of the DNA backbone contributes significantly to the DNA molecule’s accidental, i.e., constantly changing, helical structure and function.[93]
There is a branch of biology known as Physiology, which focuses on studying how the body functions. Many conversations have taken place with scientists in disciplines pertinent to the topic of this article. Evaluating said conversations sometimes leads me to surmise that connecting biological function to the philosophical study of accidents might not be occurring. This belief is especially so as it relates to the DNA molecule. Scientists who fail to incorporate the kernels of truth within the knowledge-base of each philosophical, theological, and biological discipline will fall short of attaining an adequate understanding of the whole man.
The Biblical Component of the Whole Man
Microbiologist Ben McFarland’s work has been mentioned earlier in this article. He is a proponent of incorporating the biological, chemical, and geological sciences into a holistic understanding of living organisms, especially concerning the human body. His book, A World From Dust: How the Periodic Table Shaped Life, should be integral to any biologically-related curriculum and institutions teaching theology and biblical exegesis.
McFarland tells us that the story of organic life (not restricted exclusively to rational human life) “[I]s built from three areas of evidence: rocks (geology [the philosophical substance of the DNA molecule]), genes (biology [which describes the accidents that inhere to the DNA substance]), and the chemical rules [i.e., organic chemistry] that tie the two together.”[94]
He continues:
The periodic table connects that biological event [i.e., the introduction of a chemical called water¨ to the earth] to a previous global geological change [the Cambrian explosion]. If so, then once again, chemical reactions opened up geology to provide new possibilities for biological complexity. Chemistry shaped the flow of geology and biology at once. . . . The common denominator of chemistry connects the geology to the biology. The geological event provided chemicals that life used in new ways: especially oxygen, phosphorous, and calcium, resulting in new energy, shells, and signals for life.[95]
¨ Ancient Hebrew scholar Bernard Batto tells us origin motifs were used by ancient Hebrew writers to describe creation from primordial substances, e.g., chaotic waters (Genesis 1:1-2).[96]
McFarland’s words imply that one cannot fully understand human life without incorporating various scientific disciplines. However, I also believe it should be added that we cannot fully understand the meaning and purpose of biological life without incorporating the incarnation of the Son of God, His taking upon himself our humanity, both body and spiritual soul. His formation from the dust of the earth, that primordial material from which we are all formed. In Gaudium et Spes, we are told, “It is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of man [both spiritually and biologically] truly becomes clear.”[97]
Marc Cardinal Ouellet writes:
At the basis of the sacramental economy is the event of the Word made flesh, the Word who remains in the flesh in order to draw carnal man into the inner dialogue of the Trinity. The goal of the Incarnation is the gratuitous incorporation of man, along with his entire expressive repertoire [his ability to express, i.e., send out, the overflow of his spirit], into the exchange [dialogue] between the divine Persons. Man the symbol, man the imago Dei, finds his relational identity (similitudo) in Christ the Symbol, who binds the entire creation to the divine Persons’ history of eternal love.[98]
Pope St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body informs us that the spiritual and the divine are revealed only through the instrumentality of the functionality of our carbon-based human body.
On February 20, 1980, JPII said:
The body . . . alone is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and divine. It was created to transfer into the visible reality of the world, the mystery hidden since time immemorial in God.[99]
Regarding this expression, he also tells us:
The body speaks not merely with the whole external expression of masculinity and femininity, but also with the internal structures of the organism, of the somatic [the entire body and its aggregate parts, such as the heart of flesh (cf. Ezekiel 36:26-27.)] and psychosomatic [relating to the mind/mental faculties] reaction.[100]
The above sections help illustrate the need for incorporating theology and philosophy with other scientific disciplines—specifically, biology, organic chemistry, and geology. In his letter to Rev. George Coyne at the Vatican Observatory, John Paul II warns of the consequences of failing to do so. He writes, “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”[101] The scientific synergy JPII advocates is why I categorize the TOS as a branch of the TOB.
Occasionally, a scientist claims they have discovered the location within the brain where, for example, religiosity resides. My response is no. You/they have not! The exclusion of theology and philosophy from the various biological disciplines facilitates a woeful mischaracterization of the truth of the whole Person. This same science, isolated from theology and philosophy, ingrains in our world destructive confusion and chaos regarding the nature of true spiritual love and compassion versus chemical/artificial/hormonal so-called love and compassion.
The tentacles of this poisonous lie have spread throughout our culture, bringing with it innumerable broken hearts and worse, broken human spirits. Using the biology behind hormone-induced feelings of false love/compassion, Satan convinces those doing evil that they are doing good. The reward hormones are tricking them into believing they are good people doing good things.
Hildegard writes:
And falling thus from disobedience into death, when [Adam and Eve] knew they could sin, they discovered sin’s [i.e., the poison’s] sweetness. And in this way, turning My rightful institution into sinful lust, although they should have known that the commotion [i.e., lust-inducing hormones, such dopamine and oxytocin, that are carried to their target cells via the bloodstream[102]] in their veins as not for the sweetness of sin but for the love of children. . . . Ach miserable me! for harmful poisons were instilled into me through Adam, when he disobeyed God and was cast out into the world and joined his tabernacle to carnal things.[103]
The religiosity example from above illustrates what happens when JPII’s words are ignored. Errors ensue when the indivisible wholeness of the rational human person, both spiritual soul and body, are intellectually and artificially separated. When considering the above example in the context of the whole man, it can be more accurately said that particular scientists have discovered the biblical mouth. Specifically, they have found the human body’s role in expressing the overflow of the spiritual soul, of which the cranial brain and the biological heart are key components. It should be noted that the biological heart has been reclassified as an endocrine gland because it produces tis own hormones.[104]
Through them, the overflow of the spiritual soul is accurately expressed into the material world. It is the spiritual soul that is the substantial form of the body. When God breathes the Breath into the mouth of man, included in that Breath are the individualized gifts of the Holy Spirit. The spiritual soul never loses those natural gifts. One of those gifts might be, for example, the potentiality for a higher level of intellectual wisdom and understanding.
Do not believe that anyone ever loses their God–given gifts of intellect, free will, memory, or understanding. They haven’t and never will. However, due to our fallen nature, the physical body may become damaged or rendered incapable of accurately sending out the overflow of the spirit. Thus losing or diminishing the biblical mouth’s capability to accurately express/send out the overflow of the human spirit of the spiritual soul. Classifying a person as a vegetable is a misnomer of the most egregious sort.
The Literal Sense of Scripture: Salt, Dust, & Stone
Much biological and geological evidence has been presented in this article to show that DNA can be classified as the literal salt and dust of the earth, the dust from which our bodies are formed. But do references to salt and dust in Scripture intentionally point to the same primordial organic matter—DNA? Employing the hermeneutic of STOSS to interpret Scripture may be considered by some as an exercise in concordism.
The Literal Sense & Concordism
What is concordism? The term comes from the medieval Latin term concordantial, meaning “to agree on” or “agreement and consistency”.[105] When one attaches the suffix -ism to “concord,” the word’s connotation changes. Often, -isms are associated with negative connotations, a good that has been taken to an extreme level, thus becoming bad. Some examples are concordism, militarism, chauvinism, materialism, and scientism produce negative meanings.
Relative to scientism, Albert Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind.”[106] I would modify Einstein’s expression by adding the following: Adherents of scientism who are ignorant and disdainful of Scripture are doomed to fall short of the material and spiritual truth of creation, especially of man who is made in the image and likeness of God. Likewise, we can say theologians and Scripture scholars ignorant of science (when rigorously performed) will also be unable to fully understand the words of Scripture and the Truth contained therein.
Biologist Stacey Trasancos describes scientism thusly,
“Scientism” is the belief that only knowledge obtained from scientific research is valid, and beliefs deriving from religion should be discounted [or refuted]. It is an extreme or excessive faith in science or scientists.[107]
According to Andrew Loke, biblical exegesis and science are either concordant or not. Only the reasons change. He writes:
Science and theology [have] their own integrity as methods of enquiry [sic] to construct their own models of reality. . . . [after] having completed that process, it proceeds to see what types of concord or discord there may be between these two forms of knowledge, and how both of them may inform our understanding of the past by complementing each other.[108]
Concordance would be achieved when 1) Scripture is interpreted as the human author, guided by the Holy Spirit, intended for it to be interpreted, and 2) when the physical sciences, especially cosmology, biology, and geology, are rigorously conducted and correctly interpreted.** The latter two (biology and geology) are particularly germane to this article. God created all, about which, science studies. As such, how could non-concordance exist without the failure of one or both of the above conditions?
**Unfortunately, the scientific community is experiencing a crisis of trust. This crisis consists of a pandemic of junk/agenda/biased/tobacco-like science being presented as peer-reviewed. Even some segments of the clergy and theologians of the Catholic Church have fallen prey to this science-based illusion, especially involving areas associated with the social sciences. As a result, they promote very dangerous and misleading so-called reforms invoking false/artificial/biological compassion and love. I highly recommend the Church develop a process by which these junk/agenda science studies can be identified and rooted out before any reforms of the Magisterium are considered.
The Literal Sense of Salt & Dust in Scripture
What method helps to pinpoint the literal sense of each Bible passage? Two sources are noteworthy in answering the question: Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu[109] and The Pontifical Bible Commission’s Interpretation of the Bible. According to the latter, the best way to arrive at the literal sense is to examine “each biblical text in the light of the [entire] Canon of the Scriptures. . . . Each individual book only becomes biblical in the light of the Canon as a whole.”[110] Through the hermeneutics of STOSS, the Theology of Salt (TOS) has been tested by examining hundreds of Bible passages. No conflicts were revealed. On the contrary, a deeper understanding of the biblical author’s meaning was discovered in each instance.
As was mentioned earlier, several words in Scripture refer to the same substance, DNA. Those words are dust, salt, stone, rock, and salt sea. However, each word has a distinct connotation relating to DNA. Let’s examine a significant example.
Many passages in Scripture inform us that we are dust/salt of the earth and will return to dust (see Genesis 2:7, 3:19, 18:27; Tobit 3:6; Job 10:9; Ecclesiastes 3:20; and others.). Ask any funeral director what is left when a body is either cremated or decayed. They would almost certainly answer: dust and/or ashes. If every person is formed from dust, the pertinent question becomes: Where did you, me, and everyone else get their dust? The scientific answer: Everything we are comes from a single fertilized egg. Furthermore, as shown in this article, DNA is the only material within the fertilized egg that can be accurately and scientifically characterized as dust/salt.
Myth and Phenomenology
Before going any further, we must understand the meaning and usage of two words that help us correctly interpret Scripture, especially the first eleven chapters of Genesis.
The first word is phenomenology. Describing phenomenology, John Lennox writes:
Suppose, for instance, that God had intended to explain the origin of the universe and life to us in detailed scientific language. . . . If the biblical explanation were at the level, say, of twenty–second–century science, it would likely be unintelligible to everyone. . . . Rather than scientific language, the Bible often uses what is called phenomenological language—the language of appearance. It describes what anyone can see.[111]
It was not necessary that the human authors of Scripture were made fully aware of the deeper meaning of the words they chose. The Holy Spirit can give them the symbolical and/or phenomenological words needed to convey the various polyvalent layers of meaning an all-knowing God desires for us. The whole purpose of creation is to enable man to know Him and love Him. We cannot love what we do not know.[112] The need to know God and love God would include the scientific disciplines identified in this article.
Can/does the Holy Spirit give us the words that the Spirit wants us to say include prophetic words? Luke writes, “[D]o not be anxious how or what you are to answer or what you are to say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say” (Luke 12:11-12; see also Isaiah 51:16, 2 Samuel 23:2, and Mark 13:11). Peter tells us, “[N]o prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21).
In John 11:49-51, we are given an example of the Holy Spirit’s ability to provide the human authors with the prophetic words needed to convey Truth, including biological/geological truths, despite not fully comprehending it themselves. In it, Ca′iaphas prophesied about the consequences of Jesus’ death because he sat on the chair of Moses. As the high priest, he was unaware that the Holy Spirit had given him the prophetic words to speak. In fact, in his mind, the words he chose to use were meant to convey a meaning different than that intended by the Holy Spirit. But the Spirit gave him the words to contain the Truth the Spirit desired.
In footnote (F) at the end of verse 50, it says,
Ca′iaphas agreed that, as Jesus was not (in their opinion) the Messiah, any popular insurrection now could end only in disaster; so it was better, he argued, to do away with him. He was unconscious of the deeper meaning of his words, namely that Jesus must die for the salvation of man.
Verse 51 says, “[Ca′iaphas] did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied.” See Gratuitous Grace. It is clear from his words that the meaning he intended was very different from the meaning the Holy Spirit intended, i.e., the literal meaning, by inspiring Ca′iaphas to “choose” those words. This is confirmed elsewhere in Scripture.
A few examples are:
1). “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21),2). “And I have put my words in your mouth, and hid you in the shadow of my hand, stretching out the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth, and saying to Zion, ‘You are my people’” (Isaiah 51:16); and3). “And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit” (Mark 13:11).
It is vital to understand, especially where Genesis is concerned, it was not necessary for the human authors of Scripture to know the science of DNA for them to choose the words the Spirit planted in their mind. The Holy Spirit used the words given to them to hide, in applied sciences fashion and until that time when the science was available, to understand the deeper truths about the whole man. It should be noted that while all grace is ultimately gratuitous graces, i.e., freely given and not earned, falling within the classification known as “Gratuitous” are provided for the benefit of others and are independent of the moral character of the person being used as the instrument of, for example, prophetic graces.[113]
That the Holy Spirit hides the revelation of deeper layers of meaning in some passages and mysteries contained therein, for discovery at later times, can be seen by the words given to Hildegard. She was given a prophecy about a time that would arrive upon which “the Catholic faith wavers among the nations and the Gospel limps among the people; and the mighty books in which the excelling doctors had summed up knowledge with great care go unread from shameful apathy, and the food of life, which is the divine Scriptures, cools to tepidity.” At that time, she continues, the Holy Spirit would reveal, “new secrets and mystical truths, heretofore hidden in books [of Scripture?].”[114]
The second word is myth. Its meaning is more specific to the origin myths used to help interpret Genesis 1 and 2. Unfortunately, many have based their interpretation of Genesis employing an incorrect understanding of the mythical language used by ancient Hebrew writers. Thus, they miss the target. Mythopoeia formulation did not even exist until the Hellenistic Greek period (circa 300 BC to 300 AD)— ~7 centuries after Moses either, A) wrote the Pentateuch, B) was the inspired source of the oral tradition or, C) a combination of A and B. Using a linguistic style that did not even exist when Genesis was written is not a sound hermeneutic.
Bernard Batto defines myth as language, not stories, used to express realities that transcend the capacity for human understanding but are nevertheless profoundly true.[115] These truths reflect a paradigmatic shift in human knowledge, as is undoubtedly the case in Genesis. A linguistic tool often used to communicate such paradigms is paradigmatic substitution.[116] The Big Bang is a modern-day application of that tool and reflects the mythic formulation used in ancient Hebrew Scripture.[117] According to Bernard Batto:
Myth is defined. . . . as the profound symbolization of realities which transcend human capacity to comprehend [emphasis added] and express them in ordinary language but which are profoundly true and paradigmatic for authentic life, even the central Christian mysteries of incarnation, resurrection and the second coming of Jesus may be understood as myth.[118]
He continues:
Many of the [origin] motifs that we previously encountered appear also in Hebrew literature: a primeval substance from which all creation is made, whether chaotic waters (Gen 1:1-2) or barren desert (Gen 2:4-5); a special creation of humankind, whether out of clay infused with a divine substance (Gen 2:7).[119]
Worth noting, the abovementioned primordial matter points to the accuracy of Genesis’ description of man’s creation from the salt/dust of DNA and biological water. God revealed to St. Hildegard, “Out of clay God so shaped humanity that through this tiny spark of the [spirirtual] soul we become flesh and blood out of clay.”[120]
St. John writes:
“As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” As he said this, he spat [symbolizing biological water] on the ground [symbolizing dust of the earth—DNA] water to form mud/clay] and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man’s eyes with the clay, saying to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Silo′am” (John 9:5-7).
The miracle of the healing of the blind man is different from most, if not all, other healings in Scripture. It is the first time, with the qualified exception of Mark 7:32-35 and 8:23-25 (both did, however, involve Jesus’ spittle—representing bio-living water—in the healing), that Jesus used a prop external to his body to perform a miracle. The materials used as props are essential for interpreting the miracle’s more profound meaning.
Mark Shea wrote (emphasis added),
How can Genesis use figurative language, but still affirm a primeval event? It can do it because mythic language is precisely the best way to affirm such an event, an upheaval. . . . mythic language is truer language than newspaper language, because it brings us to the heart of what happened.[121]
Genesis 1 and 2 point directly to prime matter, i.e., the dust of the earth, as the matter of which man’s DNA is formed. It employs mythical language to convey biological truths.
Examples That Illustrate Differing Connotations
In Old Covenant Scripture, salt presents some seemingly contradictory connotations. Those contradictions disappear when we answer the question: To whose salt is the passage referring? Salt can refer to the DNA of a disordered fallen person or Jesus’ human salt/dust of DNA in the state of Original Justice. The hermeneutic of STOSS unifies the Old Covenant connotations of salt and removes the appearance of contradiction.
Following are some examples of the bad connotations. In Psalms, we read, “He turns rivers into a desert, springs of water into thirsty ground, a fruitful land into a salty waste, because of the wickedness of its inhabitants” (Psalm 107:33-34). In Deuteronomy, it is written, “See the afflictions of that land and the sicknesses with which the Lord has made it sick—the whole land brimstone and salt [referencing Lot’s wife and the Dead/Salt Sea, which will be discussed later], and a burnt-out waste, unsown, and growing nothing, where no grass can sprout.” (Deuteronomy 29:22-23).
Prefacing examples of positive connotations, it is written in Second Kings:
When they had crossed [the Jordan River], Eli′jah said to Eli′sha, “Ask what I shall do for you, before I am taken from you.” And Eli′sha said, “I pray you, let me inherit a double share[a] of your spirit” (2 Kings 2:9).
Footnote [a] reads, “a double share: The eldest son inherited a double share of his father’s property, cf. Deut 21.17. Elisha regarded himself as the son and so asked for Elijah’s spirit as his inheritance.”
Couple this with the passage text:
Now the men of the city said to Eli′sha, “Behold, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord sees; but the water is bad, and the land is unfruitful.” He said, “Bring me a new bowl, and put salt in it.” So they brought it to him. Then he went to the spring of water and threw salt in it, and said, “Thus says the Lord, I have made this water wholesome; henceforth neither death nor miscarriage shall come from it.” So the water has been wholesome to this day, according to the word which Eli′sha spoke (2 Kings 2:19-22).
From these two sets of passages, we see that Eli′sha represents the Apostles of Christ who baptize those entering into the Mystical Body of Christ. These same Apostles offer up the Ascended glorified physical body of Christ in the Eucharist. The Apostles received the double share of Eli′jah’s Holy Spirit. The salt in the bowl represents Christ’s salt/dust of DNA. The new bowl is his resurrected, glorified (but no longer mortal), and ascended body given to us in the Eucharist.
In sharp contrast, salt in the New Covenant is always good—unless it loses its flavor/taste. The distinction is this: In the New Covenant, the baptized already have what they need, i.e., the flavor/taste that comes with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which can be lost through mortal sin. In the Old Covenant, fallen man had lost that indwelling and couldn’t get it back until Jesus fulfilled his redemptive mission on earth. Thus, there is no contradiction, only the need to understand what taste and flavor mean in the texts. The hermeneutic of STOSS helps to clarify the meaning of these passages.
At Pentecost, the Father sends the Holy Spirit to dwell within our spiritual soul. Interpreting Luke 14:34–35, St. Bede and Theophylact of Ochrid equate the loss of grace to salt’s loss of flavor/savor.[122] In Matthew 5:13, Remigius of Auxerre agrees but is more specific. He writes:
[S]alt is changed into another kind of substance by three means, water, the heat of the sun, and the breath of the wind. Thus, Apostolical men also were changed into spiritual regeneration by the water of baptism, the heat of love, and the breath of the Holy Spirit. . . . It should be known, that in the Old Testament no sacrifice was offered to God unless it were first sprinkled with salt, for none can present an acceptable sacrifice to God without the flavour of heavenly wisdom.[123]
Lot’s Wife and the Pillar of Salt
The disobedience of Lot’s wife (we will call her Idit[124]) resulted in her becoming a lifeless pillar of salt (Genesis 19:24-26). Compare that with the purifying salt, i.e., the risen incarnate Jesus. Upon deeper examination, it can be deduced that Idit could not have been “turned into” a substantial geological stone/salt pillar, thus causing the non-biblical act of annihilating her human nature.
Uniquely, Idit became part of a scriptural map legend, identifying the meaning of fallen salt in Scripture and the consequences of breaking a covenant of salt. There weren’t any non-organic materials described in Genesis 19:24-26 that could be classified as a salt—except Idit’s salt/dust.[125] Brimstone/sulfur? No! Idit was likely encased by falling molten sulfur and then dusted with geological salt disturbed from the falling matter striking the surrounding Dead/Salt Sea environment. The geological salt-dust was employed as a phenomenological sign[126] of a biological reality.
Jesus and Lot’s Wife: Parallels-with-contrast
Idit is another example of Paul’s use of a linguistic tool known as parallels-with-contrast[127] (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:45, 47). Idit became a pillar of disobedient salt of DNA. In contrast, Jesus, who is perfectly obedient to the Father’s Will, became a pillar of obedient salt/stone. Jacob is a type of Jesus.
In Genesis, Jacob came to a “certain place,” put a stone under his head, and dreamt of angels ascending and descending a ladder. Upon awakening, he “took the stone which he had put under his head and set it up for a pillar [a parallel-with-contrast—Idit’s pillar of salt versus a pillar of stone; a type of Jesus’ body] and poured oil [Jesus was anointed] on the top. Jacob called the place Bethel [meaning House (a very particular structure) of God]” (Genesis 28:10–22).
John tells us that when Jesus said he would rebuild the stone temple in three days, he was expressly referring to his dust/stone resurrected glorified (but no longer mortal) body (John 2:19-21), which was prophesized in Ezekiel’s dream of the rebuilt temple (Ezekiel 47:1-12). Jesus was born in Bethlehem, a Hebrew word meaning “house of [organic] bread.”[128]
Jesus was laid in a manger, which was traditionally used as a feeding trough. What did Melchiz′edek, king of Salem, bring as a blessing to Abram after his victory? It was bread and wine because “he was priest of God Most High” (Genesis 14:17-18).
Another example of a positive connotation of salt is seen in Exodus. Moses is instructed to make anointing oil and incense. Both are to be used for the sacrificial offering on the altar. Both point to its archetype, Jesus. He offers the Father his suffering on the Cross. Moses is instructed to “Make an incense blended as by the perfumer, seasoned with salt, pure and holy” (Exodus 30:22-38).
This sweet incense is made only for God. He tells Moses that anyone using it for personal use will be cut off from God’s people. What is being offered? “Salt [of DNA], pure and holy.” Salt was always significant in Temple offerings. In Leviticus 2:13 it is written, “You shall season all your cereal offerings with salt; you shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be lacking from your cereal offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt.”
The seasoning with salt on all offerings by the priest on behalf of individual offerors in the Temple was a type of the Mass. More specifically, it symbolized the joining[129] of our imperfect offerings united with and purified by Jesus’ perfect offering on the Wood of the Cross.[130] Jesus’ being nailed to it (Cf. 2 Kings 4:32-35; 1 Kings 17:17-24), is a sign of the nuptial union of Christ and his Church on the Cross.[131]
After the resurrection, Jesus ate with his Apostles (Acts 1:3-4 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition). According to Benedict XVI, Luke used the word synalizômenos to describe “eating together with them.” He believed Luke deliberately chose that word. The literal translation of the phrase is “eating salt with them.” He asserts that Luke aimed to link salt [of DNA] to the Last Supper and the Eucharist—to organic life.[132]
The liturgy of the New Covenant had been foreshadowed in the rituals of the Old. The Gospels make an explicit connection between the Mass and the Passover meal (Lk 22:15).[133] The Epistle to the Hebrews sees the Mass in light of the Temple’s animal sacrifices (Heb 13:10). Many modern scholars have noted parallels between the Mass and the most commonly offered sacrifice of Jesus’ day: the thank-offering (in Hebrew, todah).
In Leviticus, it reads:
If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall offer a male without blemish; he shall offer it at the door of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the Lord; he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him (Leviticus 1:3-4).
According to Robert Jamieson et al.,
[T]his was a significant act which implied not only that the offerer devoted the animal to God, but that he confessed his consciousness of sin and prayed that his guilt and its punishment might be transferred to the victim.[134]
In ancient Jewish history, it was believed that eating the animal or grain offering made the offeror one with the offering, thus participating in the benefits of the altar sacrifice.[135]
Scott Hahn says, “The New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old is revealed in the New.”[136] Leviticus tells us all meat/animal sacrifices had to be salted.[137] The unblemished lamb is a type of Jesus. In Jewish Law, the lamb had to be consumed.[138] To this day, the Jews still dip their Sabbath bread in salt.[139]
Crystals and Precious Stones in the Bible
The Salt/Dead Sea symbolizes our post-fallen genome’s chaotic, disordered, and sinful function!! When combined with the context of a sea, salt becomes an adverb. It modifies the act through which the genetic functioning of our genes produces harmful poisons coursing through our veins, i.e., addictive and lust-producing hormones!
In juxtaposition, the resurrected bodies of the just are not symbolized by salt or sea. In Revelations, we read, “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more” (Revelation 21:1),[140] and “before the throne there is as it were a sea of glass, like crystal” (Revelation 4:6). Recall that DNA is crystalline in structure. The sea of salt symbolizes fallen man’s biology, i.e., a genome that produces harmful and lust-producing hormones. The sea of glass symbolizes man, composed of body and spiritual soul, resurrected into eternal Life.
St. Teresa of Avila, one of four female Doctors of the Church, learned from God, “[T]o think of the soul as if it were a castle made of a single diamond or of very clear crystal.”[141] She continues, “All our interest is centred in the rough setting of the diamond, and in the outer wall of the castle—that is to say, in these bodies of ours.”[142] Remember, the spiritual soul is the substantial form of the body—a body formed primarily by the same carbon atoms that form diamonds. In nature, a diamond is composed entirely of carbon atoms bonded to other carbon atoms, which can symbolize the Church.
Sheen writes:
Just as my body is constituted of millions and millions of tiny cells, each one living its own individual life and yet living the life of the whole body, so too the Church is made up of millions and millions of [carbon-based organic] members incorporated into [the Mystical Body of Christ] by baptism.[143]
In other words, the Mystical Body is a single diamond that grows in size while remaining a single diamond as more people (i.e., carbon atoms) are added via baptism.
Two points should be considered to more fully appreciate the biological, geological, and theological sciences present in the words of Scripture.
First point, as was discussed previously, man is a carbon-based life form. Every rung of the DNA ladder is bound to a deoxyribose (5-carbon, aka pentose, sugar) portion of the DNA backbone (a component of the “handrails” of the helical DNA ladder). All five carbons are bound to each other and also to other primordial elements. The bonded carbon atoms in DNA are just the tip of the carbon iceberg, so to speak. The rest of the biological iceberg is the vast multitude of carbon atoms that form chemical bonds with other elemental atoms to form proteins, bones, and teeth.
According to Charles Bruehl,
The human [spiritual] soul is an independent substance, having an existence of its own; it is not a property of the body nor a series of activities. The [spiritual] soul is the substantial form of the body. . . . Man has only one soul, which is at once the principle of vegetative, sensitive, and intellectual activity.[144]
Charles Hodge tells us:
Two elements, a true body and a rational soul, constitute a perfect or complete human nature, which is thus proved to have entered into the composition of Christ’s person.”[145]
Does this mean that, upon Jesus’ death, his human nature became incomplete? No. As Aquinas writes, “[T]he human soul retains its proper existence when separated from the body, having an aptitude and a natural inclination to be united to the body,”[146] of which it is its form.
The second point is arrived at by answering the question: Do the words of Scripture reinforce the belief that God views the human body, i.e., the dust/stone of the earth, as precious and shows it through the symbolism of precious and often translucent stones? Many examples in Scripture refer to saints (remember, everyone in Heaven is a saint) as precious stones.
Ezekiel tells us:
You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering [emphasis added], carnelian, topaz, and jasper, chrysolite, beryl, and onyx, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald; and wrought in gold were your settings, and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared (Ezekiel 28:13).
To understand the context of the word “covering” in the above passage, consider the setting in which Adam and Eve were described. In the Garden of Eden, they were both naked and unashamed because lustful hormones were not yet coursing through their veins. Thus, their “covering” was their flesh still in the state of Original Justice. The same flesh formed from primordial crystalline elements characterized as the dust of the earth.
In Ephesians 2:19-22 it is written,
So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone [emphasis added], in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
St. Peter writes,
Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:4-5).
St. John writes,
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. . . . And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. . . . The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with every jewel; the first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst” (Rev 21:14, 19-20).
In Revelation 21:18, we are told that the entire city of the Heavenly Jerusalem was made of gold as clear as glass. Furthermore, verse 21 describes this city’s streets as being gold and transparent as glass.
Earlier in this article, we learned that gold is a native element. As such, regardless of the size of the nugget, purified gold is composed of only bonded gold atoms. Coupled with Revelations 21:21, this geological property symbolizes Jesus’ being formed from only one person’s DNA. That person is the Immaculate (absent a fallen human nature) Virgin Mary. No male seed was part of that egg. Her DNA is the native element. The Divine Light of the indwelling Holy Spirit would have sparked the growth and formation of Jesus from Mary’s unfertilized egg.
Returning to Revelation’s description of Jerusalem and its streets as made of transparent gold, we realize that Revelation uses a highly symbolic form of wording. A case has been made above that the gold in chapter 21 symbolizes Jesus’ body built entirely from one person’s DNA. But how do we explain the transparency?
Carbon, Diamonds, Sodium, and the Winepress
St. John points to the key to understanding the transparency question by employing the hermeneutic of phenomenological language. We arrive at the answer to the question by considering the human body in light of the sciences of biology, geology, theology, and physics. As was discussed elsewhere, we are carbon-based life forms. Carbon atoms form much of the DNA architecture. While sodium is not part of DNA structure, it is undoubtedly part of its substance. Sodium bonds to the DNA backbone’s phosphate groups (acid/salt). Without sodium, DNA would not be able to function.
The shared scientific findings involving carbon and sodium reveal a commonality that helps us understand the meaning of transparent gold and the sea of glass in Revelation 21. What do the two elements have in common? Both possess the ability to become transparent under extremely high pressures. Sodium will be discussed after carbon.
Carbon
The biblical uses of terms such as crystal, transparent, glass-like, etc., are meant to serve as symbols of man resurrected into eternal life. The resurrected body still possesses a liquid-crystal nature. One that has been purified and glorified yet remains physical but no longer mortal. A crushing yet salvific pressure symbolizes the catalyst for this transformation.
At pressures less than 55 Gpa (gigapascals are measurements of extreme pressure), which is equivalent to ~8 million psi, and above 115 Gpa (~16 million psi), graphite (bonded native carbon atoms) transforms into a transparent glass-like diamond.[147] In light of the meaning of phenomenological language, bonded carbon atoms within our DNA structure, and the proteins it produces, our bodies could be characterized as a sea of glass. This characterization could symbolize the glorified resurrected bodies of those in Heaven, as described in Revelation 21.
What biblical symbol is used to signify this intense, transforming, and purifying pressure? The answer is the winepress. Jesus uses it in the parable of the landlord and his tenants (Mt. 21:33, Mk. 12:1). Origen interprets the winepress as referring to the altar positioned over the sacred stone [upon which is offered to the Father the Passion and bodily death of our Savior on the cross].[148] St. Jerome agrees. He identifies the winepress as a symbol of a place of offering, i.e., the altar.[149]
St. Hildegard writes,
[Jesus] was placed on the winepress, where wine was to be pressed out without the dregs of fermentation, because He the cornerstone fell upon the press and made such wine that it gave forth the greatest odor of sweetness.[150]
Augustine equates the winepress with Jesus’ passion and death in the garden and on the cross. At the very beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, he foreshadowed the results of the completion of his ministry by changing water (inorganic and symbolic of Baptism) into the best wine (organic and representing the blood of the Lamb in the Eucharist) at the wedding feast of the Lamb; at the wedding celebration at Cana (John 2:1-11).
The twelve foundation stones mentioned in Revelation 21 were made of precious crystalline stones, symbolizing the twelve Apostles’ resurrected bodies. Precious stones, such as diamonds, are composed entirely of carbon atoms bonded to other carbon atoms. They are crystalline mineral rocks. In the passage above, John doesn’t describe glass as an actual sea (Revelation 4:6). I believe this is because Scripture is consistent with Revelation’s use of the sea as a symbol of the disordered function of fallen man’s body/soul composite.
Sodium
Equally symbolic is elemental sodium which is part of the DNA substance. It, too, serves as a phenomenological sign of a purified, glorified resurrected body. Sodium is an inorganic solid critical to DNA’s architecture and function. It neutralizes the acidity of the DNA backbone and causes the molecule to take the form of a double helix.
According to Artem Oganov, all materials under sufficiently high pressure must turn into an elemental metal. Even hydrogen, the most common element in the universe, will undergo metallization under such extreme pressures.[151] Of significance, metallic sodium does just the opposite. Under sufficiently high pressure (i.e., 200 Gpa or ~2 million atmospheres)[152], the metallic structure of sodium (usually a white metal) collapses and is replaced by a new non-metallic molecular structure. Furthermore, the new sodium becomes transparent, like glass.[153] This chemical phenomenon was experimentally proven by Mikhail Eremets and published in the March 12, 2014, edition of the journal Nature.[154]
Conclusion
Clarifying the distinction between the scriptural text’s literal and symbolic meanings is essential. In light of the hermeneutic of STOSS, when Scripture says that we are dust/salt/stone of the earth, it should be interpreted literally, i.e., the words the Holy Spirit desired and inspired the human authors to use. Our DNA is comprised of organic and inorganic solids, the components of which are geologically defined elements listed in the periodic table.
When terms such as “like glass,” “transparent gold,” “precious stones,” and “sand of the seashore” are used in Scripture text, they should be understood as symbolic terms describing the various states in which the human body may find itself as a direct consequence of the bodies cooperation with the spiritual soul’s free-will choices to do either good or evil.
St. Catherine of Siena (a Doctor of the Church) seems to describe the proper understanding behind the symbolism discussed in this last section. It was revealed to her how the body, formed from the primordial dust of the earth, will be rewarded, or punished, at the resurrection of the dead on the last day.
She writes (emphasis added):
[At the resurrection,] all will see my [i.e., God’s] generosity and mercy shine forth in the blessed as these receive the fruit of the blood of the Lamb [the blood that flowed into the sacred rock]. And they will see how all the sufferings the blessed endured remain as adornments on their bodies, like ornamentation imprinted on cloth [made with organic matter]—not from the body’s own excellence, but because the soul from her fullness will imprint on the body [able to do so because it is the substantial form of the body] the fruit of its labors, to shine outwardly, since it was her partner in virtue. Just as a mirror reflects a person’s face, just so, the fruit of their labors will be reflected in their bodies. When the darksome ones see such honor, and themselves deprived of it, their suffering and confusion will increase. For on their bodies will appear the mark of their evil deeds, with pain and excruciating torment.[155]
Lastly, according to St. Hildegard of Bingen, virtues work together through the body and soul.[156] She writes, “A virtue is a divine quality that. . . . fully incarnates itself [emphasis added].”[157] What does this mean?
The spiritual soul contains upper and lower powers. The upper powers of the spiritual soul, i.e., the “spirit” of the spiritual soul, are:
The lower power of the spiritual soul is the “soul”. The soul directs the structure and function of the human body.1) Intellect/Understanding (not to be confused with the cranial brain) is how we can know Divine Truth. Both St. Hildegard and St. Catherine incorporate Understanding as a part of the intellect;[158]2) Free Will, of which Charity and Love are derived, becomes on fire to send out/express/share Truth,[159] and;3) In addition to 1 and 2 above, St. Catherine of Siena (a Doctor of the Church) adds Memory.[160]
We must not believe that the different powers of the spiritual soul (both upper and lower powers) represent a duality. No distinct and segregated locations exist between the upper and lower powers of the spiritual soul. The spirit is not in a compartment fenced off from the soul and vice versa. It is one spiritual soul. In #367 of the Catechism, it reads:
Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people ‘wholly’, with ‘spirit and soul and body’ kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming (1 Thess. 5:23). The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality [emphasis added] into the soul.[161] ‘Spirit’ signifies that from creation, man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.”[162]
The above informs us that the body, its physiology, is purified to the same degree as the spiritual heart is purified. The higher powers of the spiritual soul, i.e., the human spirit (where the Holy Spirit dwells), are not fenced off from the lower powers–the soul of the spiritual soul. Why is this necessary? As the body is the mouth through which the overflow of the spiritual heart is expressed into visible creation, the body must accurately express (both sense-ably and meta-sense-ably) virtuous acts that will bear good fruit. If this were not the case, then God, being a perfectly Just Judge, would be obliged to potentially send the body to an eternal abode that is different from that of the spiritual soul.
However, this would be impossible. Why? The overflow of the spirit informs the soul of what the body must do and how to do it. Quoting Jesus, Matthew writes, “You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the [spiritual] heart the mouth [the whole body, of which the biological heart and cranial brain are most prominent] speaks” (Matthew 12:34). Furthermore, Sheen tells us that acts/actions are attributed to the Person, not the nature (Actiones sunt suppositorum).[163] Thus, any desire overflowing from the human spirit of the spiritual soul will be accurately performed by the body through the direction of the “soul” of the spiritual soul. Both would and must be attributed to the individual human Person, body, and spiritual soul.[164] Biology, theology, and geology help us to understand the whole man.
Endnotes
[1] John Paul II, “Letter of John Paul II to Rev. George V. Coyne, Director of The Vatican Observatory,” (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, June 1, 1988), https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19880601_padre-coyne.html.
[2] John Paul II, Letter to Rev. George V. Coyne, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19880601_padre-coyne.html.
[3] Ben McFarland, A World From Dust: How the Periodic Table Shaped Life (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016), Kindle Edition, pp. 2, 13.
[4] According to Britannica: “In chemistry, a base is any substance that in water solution is slippery to the touch, tastes bitter, changes the colour [sic] of indicators (e.g., turns red litmus paper blue), reacts with acids to form salts, and promotes certain chemical reactions (base catalysis). Examples of bases are the hydroxides of the alkali and alkaline earth metals (sodium, calcium, etc.).” ; Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia, “base,” Encyclopedia Britannica, January 19, 2024: https://www.britannica.com/science/base-chemical-compound.
[5] The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, “Salt,” Encyclopedia Britannica (March 13, 2024): https://www.britannica.com/science/salt-acid-base-reactions.
[6] McFarland, A World From Dust, 12.
[7] University of Georgia, “Light Shed on Ancient Origin of Life,” Science Daily, March 6, 2013, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130307110644.htm.
[8] David L. Jeffrey and Klyne Snodgrass, “Stone,” in A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, ed. David L. Jeffrey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 736-737.
[9] In the natural Christ, there was a human nature and a Divine nature in the unity of the Divine Person of the Word; the human nature was visible, the Divine nature was invisible, but their joint action in the unity of the Word constituted what was called a theandric action.(Fulton J. Sheen, The Mystical Body of Christ (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 2015), 44-45).] of the historical Christ (Sheen, The Mystical Body of Christ,p. 45, 48). A Church that extends the Incarnate Life of Christ through space and time (Sheen, The Mystical Body of Christ, p. 76).
[10] In Genesis 28:10–22, Jacob set up a stone pillar that he identified as the House of God.
[11] Though the size of the site of ancient Jerusalem is not particularly impressive and ordinarily would not be considered a large hill, for the psalmist Zion is God’s holy hill (Ps 99:9). The prophets describe it as “chief among the mountains, raised above the hills” (Is 2:2; Mi 4:1). The Canaanite god Baal was thought to dwell on a great mountain to the north, Mt Zaphon; so the psalmist describes Zion as “beautiful in its loftiness, like the utmost heights of Mt Zaphon” (Ps 48:1, 2). God’s sanctuary is “like the high mountains” (Ps 78:68; Ez 40:2). Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Zion,” in Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 2202.
[12] Joseph Ratzinger, The God of Jesus Christ: Meditations on the Triune God, trans. Brian McNeil (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008), 84.
[13] Scott Hahn, “Temple, Sign, and Sacrament: Towards a New Perspective on the Gospel of John,” (Steubenville: Letter & Spirit, 2008), Vol. 4, pp. 108, 113.
[14] Note: in Ezekiel’s dream of the New Covenant temple (Ezekiel 47:1) of Jesus’ glorified and Ascended body, the Living Water that flowed out of the temple flowed to the east.
[15] Barnabas Meistermann, “Temple of Jerusalem,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14, (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912); http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14499a.htm.
[16] Think of Melchiz′edek, a foreshadowing of Christ, and his gift of bread and wine in Genesis 14:17-19.
[17] Scott Hahn, Signs of Life: 40 Catholic Customs and Their Biblical Roots, (New York, NY: Random House Publishing Group, 2009), Kindle Edition, 38.
[18] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), n. 1324 ; Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, n. 11 (November 21, 1964) (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998), https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.
[19] The Mass contains the unbloody immolation of the Cross and is distinct from the sacrifice on the Cross only in the manner of the offering. On the Cross, the sacrifice was bloody and was made by Christ alone; in the Mass, the offering is unbloody and is made by Christ through the ministry of the priest. . . . Through the actions of the priest, the Church repeats [is made present at] the Last Supper and thereby is united by Christ to his sacrifice. The Mass, then, is the sacrifice of the whole Church, but it would be a mistake to think that two sacrifices are being offered. (Scott Hahn, ed., “The Eucharist as Sacrifice,” in Catholic Bible Dictionary (New York; London; Toronto; Sydney; Auckland: Doubleday, 2009), 258).
[20] F. Duane Lindsey, “Leviticus,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, eds. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 191.
[21] Note, the sodium atom forms an ionic bond with the polar covalently bonded phosphate group of the DNA backbone.
[22] James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 80, 85, 130.
[23] MedlinePlus, “Definitions of Health Terms: Minerals,” (Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine, updated March 2, 2022), https://medlineplus.gov/definitions/mineralsdefinitions.html.
[24] This author believes that mitosis and cytokinesis would not occur before God breathes the Breath of life (the spiritual soul), which infuses the substantial form from which a fertilized egg grows. The light of the spiritual soul, which is the substantial form of the body, directs all genetic functions. ; According to the ITC, “In order to maintain the unity of body and soul clearly taught in revelation, the Magisterium adopted the definition of the human soul as forma substantialis (cf. Council of Vienne and the Fifth Lateran Council). Here, the Magisterium relied on Thomistic anthropology, which, drawing upon the philosophy of Aristotle, understands body and soul as the material and spiritual principles of a single human being. It may be noted that this account is not incompatible with present-day scientific insights. Modern physics has demonstrated that matter in its most elementary particles is purely potential and possesses no tendency toward organization. But, the level of organization in the universe, which contains highly organized forms of living and non-living entities, implies the presence of some ‘information.’ This line of reasoning suggests a partial analogy between the Aristotelian concept of substantial form and the modern scientific notion of ‘information.’ Thus, for example, the DNA of the chromosomes contains the information necessary for matter to be organized according to what is typical of a certain species or individual. Analogically, the substantial form provides to prime matter the information it needs to be organized in a particular way” (International Theological Commission, “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God,” n. 30 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004), https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html.
[25] MedlinePlus, “Minerals,” (Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine, updated July 17, 2024), https://medlineplus.gov/minerals.html.
[26] Callan Bentley et al., “4.2: What is a mineral?,” in Historical Geology (LibreTexts and VIVA, the Virginia Library Consortium, 10/30/2024), https://geo.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Geology/Historical_Geology_(Bentley_et_al.)/04%3A_Earth_Materials_-_The_Rock_Forming_Minerals/4.02%3A_What_is_a_mineral.
[27] Maddy Chapman, “Are Humans Organic or Inorganic?” IFLScience, October 13, 2023: https://www.iflscience.com/are-humans-organic-or-inorganic-71107.
[27B] Chapman, Are Humans Organic or Inorganic, https://www.iflscience.com/are-humans-organic-or-inorganic-71107.
[28] This was calculated by going to https://www.webelements.com/. Then, select the particular element (e.g., Na or Mg) for which you want to obtain the weight. Then select “Biology” from the top ribbon menu. Enter your weight (select kilograms or pounds). Press “calculate”. It will produce the weight of that Element in your body in grams. Divide by 453.592 to get the weight of the Element in pounds.
[29] Dexter Perkins, et al., “9.2.1: Native Elements- Metals, Semimetals, and Nonmetals,” in Mineralogy (LibreTexts: Geosciences Library, 2022) ; Dexter Perkins, et al., “2.4.5: Ionic, Covalent, and Metallic Crystals,” in Mineralogy, (LibreTexts: Geosciences Library, 2022).
[30] This was calculated by going to https://www.webelements.com/. Then, select the particular element (e.g., Na or Mg) for which you want to obtain the weight. Then select “Biology” from the top ribbon menu. Enter your weight (select kilograms or pounds). Press “calculate”. It will produce the weight of that Element in your body in grams. Divide by 453.592 to get the Element's weight in pounds.
[31] Dexter Perkins, et al., “1.3: Elements, Minerals, and Rocks,’ in Mineralogy (LibreTexts: Geosciences Library, 2022), https://geo.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Geology/Mineralogy_(Perkins_et_al.)/01%3A_Introduction/1.03%3A_Elements_Minerals_and_Rocks.
[32] Ian A. Hatton, Eric D. Galbraith, Nono S. C. Merleau, and Jeffery A. Shander, “The human cell count and size distribution,” Cell Biology 120, no.39 (September 18, 2023): https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2303077120.
[33] Stephanie West Leacock, et al., “1.1: The Structure of DNA,” in BIOL3300 Genetics (Little Rock: LibreTexts & University of Arkansas, 1/03/2024).
[34] Stephanie West Leacock, et al., “1.1: The Structure of DNA,” in BIOL3300 Genetics (Little Rock: LibreTexts & University of Arkansas, 1/03/2024).
[35] Allison Piovesan, Maria Chiara Pelleri, Francesca Antonaros, Pierluigi Strippoli, Maria Caracausi, & Lorenzo Vitale, “On the length, weight and GC content of the human genome,” BMC research notes 12, no. 106 (2019): 2, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4137-z.
[36] “Water and Cells,” British Society for Cell Biology, accessed 11/19/2024, https://bscb.org/learning-resources/softcell-e-learning/water-and-cells/.
[37] W. Drost-Hanson, “Vicinal Hydration of Biopolymers: Cell Biological Consequences,” eds. Gerald H. Pollack, Ivan L. Cameron, and Denys N. Wheatley, Water and the Cell (The Netherlands: Springer, 2006), 210-211.
[38] Drost-Hanson, Vicinal Hydration of Biopolymers, 204.
[39] Drost-Hanson, Vicinal Hydration of Biopolymers, 210.
[40] Patricio A. Carvajal, and Tyre C. Lanier, “The Unfolded Protein State Revisited,” in Water and the Cell, ed. Gerald H. Pollack, Ivan L. Cameron, Denys N. Wheatly (The Netherlands: Springer, 2006), 235-251 ; Frank Mayer, Denys Wheatley, and Michael Hoppert, “Some Properties of Interfacial Water: Determinants for Cell Architecture and Function,” in Water and the Cell, ed. Gerald H. Pollack, Ivan L. Cameron, Denys N. Wheatly (The Netherlands: Springer, 2006),253-254, 259-260, 267-268.
[41] Voeikov, Water and the Cell, 268.
[42] Voeikov, Water and the Cell, 259.
[43] Voeikov, Water and the Cell, 268.
[44] Pradeep Kumar, Sergey V. Buldyrev, H. Eugene Stanley, “A tetrahedral entropy for water,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.106, no.52 (2009): 22130-22134, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0911094106 ; cf. cited in Rockefeller University, “By tracking water molecules, physicists hope to unlock secrets of life,” ScienceDaily, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100227215943.htm.
[45] Frank Mayer, Denys Wheatley, and Michael Hoppert, "Some Properties of Interfacial Water: Determinants for Cell Architecture and Function," in Water and the Cell, ed. Gerald H. Pollack, Ivan L. Cameron, Denys N. Wheatly (The Netherlands: Springer, 2006), 267-268.
[46] Mae-Wan Ho, Zhou Yu-Ming, Julian Haffegee, et al., “The Liquid Crystalline Organism and Biological Water,” Water and the Cell, eds. Gerald H. Pollack, Ivan L. Cameron, Denys N. Wheatly (The Netherlands: Springer, 2006), 219-221.
[47] Mae-Wan Ho, The Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics of Organisms, (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company, 1993, 2nd edition 1998; reprinted 2000; 2001, 2003), pps. 37, 40, 52, 130, 164, 169.
[48] Ben McFarland, A World From Dust: How the Periodic Table Shaped Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), Kindle Edition, 184.
[49] B. T. Bernstein, and J. F. Smith, “Coefficients of thermal expansion for face-centered cubic and body-centered cubic calcium,” Acta Crystallographica, 1959, 12, 419, https://doi.org/10.1107/S0365110X59001268 ; cited in Mark Winter, “WebElements,” Accessed 10/07/2024 (The University of Sheffield and WebElements Ltd.), https://www.webelements.com/calcium/crystal_structure.html.
[50] A. Simon, H. Borrmann and H. Craubner, “Phosphorus and Sulfur and the Related Elements,” 1987, 30, 507, doi:10.1080/03086648708080631 ; cited in WebElements, https://www.webelements.com/phosphorus/crystal_structure.html.
[51] L.-G. Liu, J. Phys. Chem. Solids, 1986, 47, 1067 ; cited in WebElements, https://www.webelements.com/potassium/crystal_structure.html.
[52] Endel Aruja, and Harald Perlitz, “Neubestimmung der Gitterkonstante von Natrium,” Zeitschrift für Kristallographie - Crystalline Materials 100, no. 1-6 (1939): 195-200, https://doi.org/10.1524/zkri.1939.100.1.195 ; cited in WebElements, https://www.webelements.com/sodium/crystal_structure.html.
[53] B.M. Powell, K.M. Heal, and B.H. Torrie, “The Temperature Dependence of the Crystal Structures of the Solid Halogens, Bromine and Chlorine,” Molecular Physics 53, no.4 (1984): 929–39, https://doi.org/10.1080/00268978400102741 ; cited in WebElements, https://www.webelements.com/chlorine/crystal_structure.html.
[54] G. B. Walker, and M. Marezio, “Lattice parameters and zone overlap in solid solutions of lead in magnesium,” Acta Metallurgica 7, no. 12 (1959): 769-773 ; cited in WebElements, https://www.webelements.com/magnesium/crystal_structure.html.
[55] R. Kohlhaas, P. Donner, and N. Schmitz-Pranghe, Z. Angew, “On the temperature dependence of the lattice parameters of iron, cobalt and nickel in the high temperature range,” Phys., 1967, 23, 245 ; cited in WebElements, https://www.webelements.com/iron/crystal_structure.html.
[56] Eric R. Jette, & Frank Foote, “Precision Determination of Lattice Constants,” J. Chem. Phys 3, no. 10 (1935): 605–616, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1749562 ; cited in WebElements, https://www.webelements.com/zinc/crystal_structure.html.
[57] R. M. Ibberson, O. Moze, and C. Petrillo, “High resolution neutron powder diffraction studies of the low temperature crystal structure of molecular iodine (I2),” Mol. Phys., 1992, 76, 395, https://doi.org/10.1080/00268979200101411 ; cited in WebElements, https://www.webelements.com/iodine/crystal_structure.html.
[58] G.S. Pawley and R.P. Rinaldi, “Constrained refinement of orthorhombic sulphur,” Acta Crystallographica., 1972, 28B, 3605, https://doi.org/10.1107/S0567740872008428 ; cited in WebElements, https://www.webelements.com/sulfur/crystal_structure.html.
[59] F. Vincent, and M. Figlarz, C. R. Hebd. Seances Acad. Sci., 264C, (1967) 1270 ; cited in WebElements, https://www.webelements.com/cobalt/crystal_structure.html.
[60] M. E. Straumanis and L. S. Yu, “Lattice parameters, densities, expansion coefficients and perfection of structure of Cu and of Cu–In α phase,” Acta Crystallographica, 1969, 25A, 676, https://doi.org/10.1107/S0567739469001549 ; cited in WebElements, https://www.webelements.com/copper/crystal_structure.html.
[61] Linus Pauling, Ian Keaveny, Arthur B. Robinson, “The crystal structure of α-fluorine,” Journal of Solid State Chemistry, Volume 2, Issue 2, 1970, Pages 225-227, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4596(70)90074-5 ; cited in WebElements, https://www.webelements.com/fluorine/crystal_structure.html.
[62] C. P. Gazzara, R. M. Middleton, R. J. Weiss, and E. O. Hall. “A refinement of the parameters of α-manganese,” Acta Crystallographica 22, no. 6 (1967): 859-862, https://doi.org/10.1107/S0365110X67001689 ; cited in WebElements, https://www.webelements.com/manganese/crystal_structure.html.
[63] P. Cherin and P. Unger, “Refinement of the crystal structure of α-monoclinic Se,” Acta Crystallographica B, 1972, 28, 313, https://doi.org/10.1107/S0567740872002249 ; cited in WebElements, https://www.webelements.com/selenium/crystal_structure.html.
[64] “Vitamins and Minerals,” National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, last updated July 2023, https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/vitamins-and-minerals ; see also “Precious metals and other important minerals for health,” Harvard Health Publishing, February 15, 2021, https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/precious-metals-and-other-important-minerals-for-health.
[65] James D. Watson, The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 43, 54-56, 73.
[66] Richard R. Sinden, DNA Structure and Function, (Academic Press: Imprint of Elsevier, 1994), Kindle Edition, Location 263.
[67] Sinden, DNA Structure and Function, Location 652.
[68] McFarland, A World From Dust, 184 ; see also pp. 9, 16.
[69] Boundless, “2.5.4: Amino Acids,” in Microbiology (Boundless) (Libre Texts: Microbiology Library, compiled on 12/13/2024).
[70] Ruedi Aebersold, Jeffrey N. Agar, I. Jonathan Amster, et al., “How many human proteoforms are there?,” Nat Chem Biol. 14, no.3 (2018):206-214; https://www.nature.com/articles/nchembio.2576.
[71] Brandon Ho, Anastasia Baryshnikova, Grant W. Brown, “Unification of Protein Abundance Datasets Yields a Quantitative Saccharomyces cerevisiae Proteome,” Cell Systems, 2018; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2017.12.004 ; cited in University of Toronto, “A cell holds 42 million protein molecules, scientists reveal,” ScienceDaily, 01/17/2018: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180117131202.htm.
[72] Robert Proulx Heaney, and G. Donald Whedon, “bone,” in Encyclopedia Britannica, December 4, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/science/bone-anatomy.
[73] Boundless, “2.5.4: Amino Acids,” in Microbiology (Boundless) (Libre Texts: Microbiology Library, compiled on 12/13/2024).
[74] Ananya Mandal, MD, “Collagen Molecular Structure,” ed. April Cashin-Garbutt, News Medical, 06/17/2023: https://www.news-medical.net/health/Collagen-Molecular-Structure.aspx.
[75] Stanislas Von Euw, Yan Wang, Guillaume Laurent, et al., “Bone mineral: new insights into its chemical composition,” Scientific Reports 9, 8456 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44620-6.
[76] Dexter Perkins, et al., “2.4.1: Ionic Bonds,” in Mineralogy, (LibreTexts: Geosciences Library, 2022).
[77] Dexter Perkins, et al., “2.4.3: Metallic Bonds,” in Mineralogy, (LibreTexts: Geosciences Library, 2022).
[78] Dexter Perkins, et al., “4.2: Covalent Bonds,” in Mineralogy, (LibreTexts: Geosciences Library, 2022).
[79] Layne Morsch et al., “2.0: Polar Covalent Bonds – Electronegativity,” in Organic Chemistry, (LibreTexts, 03/20/2024).
[80] Mitchell Singer, “15.3: F2023_Bis2A_Singer_Bonds_and_Water: Hydrogen Bonds,” UC Davis Biological Sciences (BIS 2A) Winter 2019.
[81] Dexter Perkins, et al., “2.4.5: Ionic, Covalent, and Metallic Crystals,” in Mineralogy, (LibreTexts: Geosciences Library, 2022).
[82] “9.2: Types of Chemical Bonds,” in General Chemistry: A Molecular Approach, Contributor: Mike Blaber, (curated by LibreTexts (Textmap of Tro's Book, 2022).
[83] Dexter Perkins, et al., “2.4.5: Ionic, Covalent, and Metallic Crystals,” in Mineralogy, (LibreTexts: Geosciences Library, 2022).
[84] Layne Morsch et al., “2.0: Polar Covalent Bonds – Electronegativity,” in Organic Chemistry, (LibreTexts, 03/20/2024).
[85] Catholic Church, “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium Et Spes,” in Vatican II Documents (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011), n. 22 ; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), n. 359.
[86] Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum: Compendium of Creeds, Definitions and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, ed. Peter Hünermann, 43rd edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012) n. 302 ; cited by John Hardon, “Hypostatic Union,” Modern Catholic Dictionary (Bardstown, KY: Eternal Life; 2001, 2004, 2008), 262.
[87] Hardon, Hypostatic Union, 262.
[88] Fulton J. Sheen, The Mystical Body of Christ (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 2015), 45.
[89] R.E. Dickerson, “Base sequence and helix structure variation in B and A DNA,” J. Mol. Biol. 166, (1983):419–441 ; R.E. Dickerson, and H.R. Drew, “Structure of a B-DNA dodecamer II. Influence of base sequence on helix structure,” J. Mol. Biol. 149; (1981):761–786 ; both sources cited in Richard R. Sinden, DNA Structure and Function (San Diego: Academic Press, Imprint of Elsevier, 1994), Kindle Edition, Location 720.
[90] Joseph M. Magee, “Natural Philosophy - Substance and Accident,” Thomistic Philosophy Page, 08/27/1999, https://aquinasonline.com/substance-and-accident/.
[91] Magee, Substance and Accidents, https://aquinasonline.com/substance-and-accident/.
[92] W. Norris Clarke, “Form and Matter: Philosophical Meaning” in The New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins, and Dermot A. Lane, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 398.
[93] Sergio Cruz-León, Willem Vanderlinden, Peter Müller, Tobias Forster, Georgina Staudt, Yi-Yun Lin, Jan Lipfert, Nadine Schwierz, “Twisting DNA by salt,” Nucleic Acids Research 50, no.10, (June 10, 2022): Pages 5726, 5728–5735; https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac445 ; Z. J. Tan, & S. J. Chen, “Nucleic acid helix stability: effects of salt concentration, cation valence and size, and chain length,” Biophysical journal 90, n.4 (2006): 1176, 1186-1187; https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.105.070904.
[94] McFarland, A World From Dust, 16.
[95] McFarland, A World From Dust, 184.
[96] Bernard F. Batto, In the Beginning: Essays on Creation Motifs in the Ancient Near East and the Bible, (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), p.44.
[97] Catholic Church, “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium Et Spes,” in Vatican II Documents (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011), n. 22 ; see also Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), n. 359.
[98] Marc Cardinal Ouellet, Mystery and Sacrament of Love: A Theology of Marriage and the Family for the New Evangelization, trans. Michelle K. Borras and Adrian J. Walker (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015), 273–274.
[99] John Paul II, “Man Enters the World as a Subject of Truth and Love,” in his general audience of February 20, 1980, n. 4 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1980), https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1980/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19800220.html ; see also “Mouth in Scripture”.
[100] John Paul II, “Responsible Parenthood Linked to Moral Maturity,” given at his general audience of Sept. 5, 1984, n. 1 (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1984), https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5539.
[101] John Paul II, Letter to Coyne, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19880601_padre-coyne.html.
[102] Ernest J.W. Barrington, “hormone,” Encyclopedia Britannica, January 13, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/science/hormone.
[103] Hildegard of Bingen, Scivias, trans. Mother Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1990), p.80-81, 113.
[104] Jeffrey A. Armour, and G.C. Kember, “Cardiac sensory neurons,” in: Armour JA, Ardell JL, eds. Basic and Clinical Neurocardiology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 79-117 ; M. Cantin, J. Genest, “The heart as an endocrine gland,” Sci Am. 1986; 254 no.2: 76-81 ; M. Cantin, J. Genest, “The heart and the atrial natriuretic factor,” Endoc Rev. 1985; 6 no.2:107-127 ; M. Mukoyama, K. Nakao, K. Hosoda, et al, “Brain natriuretic peptide as a novel cardiac hormone in humans: Evidence for an exquisite dual natriuretic peptide system, atrial natriuretic peptide and brain natriuretic peptide,” J Clin Invest. 1991; 87 no.4:1402-1412 ; J. Gutkowska, M. Jankowski, S. Mukaddam-Daher, and S.M. McCann, “Oxytocin is a cardiovascularhormone,” Braz J Med Biol Res. 2000; 33 no.6: 625-633.
[105] “Concordance,” edited by Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, Concise Oxford English Dictionary (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
[106] Albert Einstein. BrainyQuote.com, accessed May 20, 2017, Xplore Inc, 2017. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins161289.html.
[107] Stacy A. Trasancos, Particles of Faith: A Catholic Guide to Navigating Science (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 2016), Kindle Edition, Locations 588-589; eISBN: 13 978-1-59471-658-4.
[108] Andrew Ter Ern Loke, The Origin of Humanity and Evolution: Science and Scripture in Conversation, (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2022), Kindle Edition, 22.
[109] Encyclical of Pope Pius XII on Promoting Biblical Studies, Commemorating the Fiftieth Anniversary of Providentissimus Deus Divino Afflante Spiritu (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1943), nos. 33-36, https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html.
[110] Pontifical Bible Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 1993), 52-53.
[111] John Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 26.
[112] Augustine of Hippo, “On the Trinity,” Book 8, Chapter 5, Section 8, in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Arthur West Haddan, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 119 ; Francis Selman, Aquinas 101: A Basic Introduction to the Thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas, (Notre Dame: Christian Classics, Ave Maria Press, 2007), p. 63.
[113] John Hardon, “Gratuitous Grace,” Modern Catholic Dictionary (Bardstown, KY: Eternal Life; 2001, 2004, 2008), 237.
[114] Hildegard of Bingen, Hildegard of Bingen: Scivias, ed. Bernard McGinn, trans. Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1990), 499.
[115] Bernard F. Batto, “Myth,” in The New Theological Dictionary, eds. Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins, and Dermot A. Lane, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 697–701.
[116] Ehsan Namaziandost, Sajad Shafiee, and Hosna Rasooyar, “Paradigmatic Relations and Syntagmatic Relations: Are They Useful in Learning Grammatical Structures?” Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research 5, no. 5, (November 2018): 22-23, 26-27.
[117] Bernard F. Batto, “Myth in the Hebrew Bible,” In the Oxford Bibliographies Online, 2023, https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0125.xml.
[118] Bernard F. Batto, “Myth.” In The New Theological Dictionary, edited by Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins, and Dermot A. Lane, 697–701. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000.
[119] Batto, In the Beginning, p.44.
[120] Hildegard of Bingen, Hildegard of Bingen’s Book of Divine Works: With Letters and Songs, Trans. Robert Cunningham, Jerry Dybdal, and Ron Miller, ed. Matthew Fox. (Santa Fe: Inner Traditions International/Bear & Company, 1987), Kindle Locations 2430-2431.
[121] Mark Shea, “Does Evolutionary Science Disprove the Faith?” September 14, 2011, National Catholic Register, https://www.ncregister.com/blog/does-evolutionary-science-disprove-the-faith.
[122] Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Luke, ed. John Henry Newman, vol. 3 (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1843), 521–522.
[123] Thomas Aquinas, “St. Matthew:5:13” in Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Matthew, ed. John Henry Newman, vol. 1 (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1841), 160–161.
[124] According to the Hebrew Midrash, the name of Lot’s wife was either Ado (Book of Jasher, Chapter 19, #52, http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/19.htm, accessed 7/6/2019) ; or Idit (Edith), (Tamar Kadari, “Lot’s Wife: Midrash and Aggadah,” in The Shalvi/Hyman Encyclopedia of Jewish Women, February 27, 2009, Jewish Women's Archive, https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/lots-wife-midrash-and-aggadah.
[125] In Scripture, the word “pillar” described “A standing stone (Heb. maṣṣēḇâ) erected as a memorial or an object of worship. During the period of the patriarchs, stones were set up as memorials (Gen. 28:18; 31:45–52; 35:14, 20; Exod. 24:4; 2 Sam. 18:18), sometimes representing God’s dwelling (Gen. 28:22). (Jennie R. Ebeling, “Pillar,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1059.) Digging deeper into Idit’s description as a pillar of salt, some interesting observations come to mind. As described by Ebeling above, the word “pillar” described a structure/monument made of stone. Earlier, we made the philosophical distinction between DNA’s structure (which does not include any metallic bonding) versus its substance (which does). DNA (stone/dust) can only be accurately described as a salt in the context of its structure—when the phosphate group’s negative charge has not been neutralized by a hydrogen or sodium ion. Thus, elemental sodium would not be a factor applicable to the term “salt” in this Bible passage. Thus, it appears that the human author of Genesis, regardless of whether he was conscious or not of it, is reinforcing the interpretation that the “pillar” of salt is a direct reference to the DNA structure, absent any accidental components.
[126] John Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 26.
[127] Douglas Mangum, ed., “Christ Reverses Adam (5:15–17),” in Lexham Context Commentary: New Testament, Lexham Context Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), Romans 5:15–17.
[128] John Hardon, “Bethlehem,” Modern Catholic Dictionary, (Bardstown: Eternal Life Publishing, 2008), 63.
[129] “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Galatians 2:20).
[130] “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Colossians 1:24).
[131] Cf. Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue, trans. Suzanne Noffke (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1980), p. 288-289; ISBN: 0-8091-2233-2 ; Stephen Michael Leininger, “Miracle at Cana: Foreshadowing the Purification of Man,” in Definition for the Cross (wood and nails), (Raceland: STOSS Books, 11/12/2023), https://stossbooks.com/the-cross,-significance-of-nails-and-wood.html.
[132] Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth Part Two, Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to The Resurrection, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011), Kindle Edition, Location 3436-3437.
[133] Scott Hahn, The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth (New York: The Crown Publishing Group, 1999), Kindle Edition, 16-17, 33.
[134] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, “Leviticus 1:4,” in Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 74.
[135] Gary M. Burge, Jesus and the Jewish Festivals (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), Kindle Edition, Locations 1178-1187.
[136] Hahn, Signs of Life, 113.
[137] Leviticus 2:13 ; cf. Aquinas, Catena Aurea, 160-161.
[138] Scott Hahn, The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth (New York: The Crown Publishing Group, 1999), Kindle Edition, 20.
[139] Robert G. Rayburn II, “Salt,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2016).
[140] That John views the sea as symbolic of fallen man can be seen by the absence in this passage of any reference to bodies of freshwater such as rivers, lakes, or streams as being “no more.” In contrast, people who experienced NDE describe the presence of crystal clear water in the new Jerusalem.
[141] Teresa of Avila, trans. E. Allison Peers, Interior Castle (Radford: Wilder Publications, 2008), Kindle Edition, Kindle Location 360; ISBN: 978-1-60459-261-0.
[142] Avila, Interior Castle, Location 375.
[143] Sheen, The Mystical Body of Christ, 39.
[144] F. J. Koch, A Manual of Apologetics, ed. Charles Bruehl, trans. A. M. Buchanan (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1915), 60–61.
[145] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 381.
[146] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I. Q. 76, co. and ad. 6.
[147] Blank, Vladimir D., Valentin D. Churkin, Boris A. Kulnitskiy, Igor A. Perezhogin, and et al., “Pressure-Induced Transformation of Graphite and Diamond to Onions,” Crystals 8, no. 2 (2018): 68; https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst8020068.
[148] Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Volume 1-4 (Original publisher: London: Oxford, 1841; published in electronic form by Primedia E-Launch), Kindle Edition, Location 12253.
[149] Aquinas, Catena Aurea, Location 12253.
[150] Hildegard of Bingen, Scivias, trans. Columba Hart and Jane Bishop (New York: Paulist Press, 1990), 105.
[151] Stony Brook University, “Metal Discovered To Become Transparent Under High Pressure,” March 21, 2014, ScienceDaily, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312180838.htm ; Y. Ma, M. Eremets, A. Oganov, et al. “Transparent dense sodium,” Nature 458, (2009): 182–185; https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07786.
[152] Stony Brook University, Metal Becomes Transparent, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312180838.htm ; Y. Ma, et al., “Transparent dense sodium,” https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07786.
[153] Stony Brook University, Metal Becomes Transparent, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312180838.htm.
[154] Stony Brook University, Metal Becomes Transparent, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312180838.htm.
[155] Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue, trans. Suzanne Noffke, O.P. (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1980), 86.
[156] Hildegard of Bingen, Scivias, trans. Mother Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1990), 345.
[157] Hildegard, Scivias, 37.
[158] Hildegard of Bingen, Scivias, (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1990), 120-121, 141, 151 ; Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue, trans. Suzanne Noffke, O.P. (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1980), 104.
[159] Hildegard, Scivias, 120-121, 151 ; Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue, 104.
[160] Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue, 104.
[161] cf. Council of Constantinople IV (870): Denzinger-Schönmetzer (DS) 657.
[162] cf. Vatican Council I, Dei Filius: Denzinger-Schönmetzer 3005; Gaudium et Spes 22 § 5 ; Humani Generis: DS 3891.
[163] Sheen, The Mystical Body of Christ, 45.
[164] Cf. Sheen, The Mystical Body of Christ, 45.