Of Promises and Previews: Urgent Old Messages for a New Millennium

By Jane Broida Drake

This unprecedented book unites the essential messages delivered by the Prophets of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Their combined teachings reveal a single, harmonious story that has been smothered by the doctrines severely dividing the individual organized religions. In this era when hatreds can be expressed with biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, we urgently need to hear this unifying story.

The explosion of two atomic bombs helped to end the Second World War, but those bombs also provided chilling examples of Bible prophecies. Many choose to dismiss prophecies as the imaginings of religious fanatics. Others convince themselves the people now living in Biblical lands who piously preserve ancient hatreds are only a threat to each other. Its hard to forget that modern weapons can turn age-old prophecies into everyones reality.

If current events or too many unanswered questions are shaking your faith in your beliefsor your disbeliefyou need to become acquainted with all the Prophets through the cascade of familiar, forgotten, rejected, and unheard teachings flowing through these pages. In Of Promises and Previews, author Jane Drake presents the combined teachings of the prophetsthe prophets who foretold the war. Youll know youve grasped the books innermost message when you feel your doubts dissipating, your fear subsiding, and your heart soar.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Apr 29, 2001
• ISBN: 9781469767598

Jane Broida Drake

Jane Drake spent most of her 87 years studying religions, but she never vowed to uphold any denomination’s teachings. This permitted her to speak of God and His promises without traditional theological constraints. She wrote with refreshing common sense and startling realism seldom found in religious works.

Book preview

PART ONE

Where We Are and How We Got Here

Chapter One

A First Glimpse of Where We Are

I can see that in the midst of darkness light persists.

Hence I gather that God is Life, Truth, Light.

Mahatma Gandhi

Separately, science and religion have been trying to answer our questions about man’s role in the universe. But Albert Einstein, perhaps the most publicly quoted modern scientist, thought: Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.¹ The Still Small Voice within us, which Mahatma Gandhi described as, …the Voice of God, the Conscience, of Truth…,² whispers—to all who will listen—that Einstein was right: We need both science and religion to provide us with pieces of the Truth.

Einstein, to his never-ending sorrow, helped to create the atomic bomb. But, about 2,500 years ago—500 years before Jesus’ birth—the Prophet Zechariah spoke of people whose …flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their sockets, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth… (Zechariah 14:12).

Believers used to think that surreal Bible prophecy could only become reality through an act of God. Today, we know that Zechariah precisely described the remains of some victims of atomic bombs.

Zechariah told us that he could foretell the future because …the word of the Lord… (Zech. 1:1) came unto him. Of course, you don’t have to believe a supernatural Being spoke to Zechariah. But his prophecy of man’s flesh consuming away isn’t a modern invention, for it appears in Scrolls that are 2,000 years old. That leaves two possibilities. Either Zechariah’s amazingly accurate description of atomic destruction was an amazingly accurate guess (which skeptics might see as only another of life’s many coincidences), or he somehow foresaw what our generation has witnessed.

Long ago, a handful of men brought messages from Someone they identified as the One and Only Almighty God of the universe. Their teachings have sustained believers through all manner of natural and manmade disasters. Today, however, even some unbelievers are recalling the messages that tell of a world bathed in …blood and fire and pillars of smoke… (Joel 2:30); of a time when …the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light… (Matt. 24:29); when …darkness shall cover the earth and gross darkness the peoples. (Isaiah 60:2). In other words, the time of the nuclear winter that scientists tell us would follow a nuclear war.

Because most of us aren’t the persons who could start or prevent that war, you might see no point in thinking about a catastrophe that’s beyond your control, severely depressing, and might never happen, or at least not in your lifetime. Nor do you have to think about it; you can readily dispense with the whole subject. You only need to tell yourself that nations will never engage in a nuclear war: Reason will surely prevail. And you could sincerely believe it—except for those moments when a news report reminds you that the unbelievable could become reality, for you, or your children, or your children’s children.

If you’ve suffered those moments, you aren’t being paranoid. You’ve simply caught sight of what some professional analysts of world affairs are now publicly stating. For example, when speaking of world hot spots, they tell us a nuclear war could erupt in the passionately religious Middle East within the first decade of this new century.

You might have little respect for expert opinions on any subject. But many believers in God don’t need political or military experts to make them suspect that …the great and terrible day of the Lord (Mal. 3:23/4:5) is drawing near. And even some skeptics no longer scoff at the thought.

Still, it’s reasonable for us to think that nations with economic or political reasons to engage in war wouldn’t use nuclear weapons, if only because they’d fear the world’s wrath. Or, they wouldn’t want to obliterate the resources they covet. Nevertheless, when religious convictions drive men to war, they firmly believe God is on their side. And if they believe it to be God’s Will, they would use nuclear weapons against their enemies, offensively or defensively. While outsiders might think them irrational, they would not be restrained by world opinion, or by the fear of what a desperate world might do to try to stop them.

In addition to that unnerving reality, we can reasonably suspect that the extensive use of biological or chemical weapons would provoke a nuclear response from the victims, or from other nations that fear for their own safety. Therefore, we need to think about the God in Whose Name some people could be willing to use man’s most horrific inventions. But we need to think about Him differently than we have, since much of what men have believed about Him has made this world what it is today.

About now, you might be thinking that I’m only another religious kook preaching the end of the world. But even if that was the primary subject of this text (which it is not), it is no longer a strictly religious subject. The Prophets only described the darkness that will cover the earth. Scientists made nuclear warfare possible, the Second World War ended with a preview of it, and political analysts tell us it’s coming.

Or, about now, you might be expecting me to claim that I know how we can avoid the darkness. I don’t. That is, the Prophets told us what we must do to avoid it, but they didn’t encourage us to think we’ll succeed.

The Prophet Malachi warns that we must turn our hearts to each other, …before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. For, if we persist in hating our fellowmen, God will …smite the land with utter destruction (Mal. 3:23-24/4:5-6). Although the individual teachings of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have often divided men and driven them to kill, the combined messages of the Prophets can help us accomplish our much-needed change of heart. The Prophets, however, also appear to say that the world will suffer a …great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be (Matt. 24:21). That ominous prophecy implies that too many people will ignore Malachi’s warning and refuse to turn their hearts to the persons they know deserve to be hated.

Yet, mankind has also been promised a king and shepherd (Ezekiel 37:24), an elect servant of God, who will …bring forth justice to the nations, and …the isles shall wait for his law (Isa. 42:1,4). But if, before his coming, we have to endure the day that …burneth as a furnace (Mal. 3:19/4:1), we could benefit by preparing ourselves through a better understanding of the God Who foretold that day. A better understanding of Him could help us live to see …the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings (Mal. 3:20/4:2), instead of …withering away for fear… (Luke 21:26), as Jesus described the plight of some people in those dark days.

Thus, while Malachi offers hope of avoiding the great and terrible day of the Lord, in effect, the Prophets tell us not to count on it! And modern realities can now tell us why.

To erase all threat of nuclear warfare, every nuclear-armed nation would have to totally destroy its weapons. You might find hope in the fact that nations have already begun the process. We’re told their efforts have reduced the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons from 18,000 megatons to 8,000 megatons.³ One megaton is an explosive force equal to one million tons of TNT. But the atomic bomb that set fire to Hiroshima was equivalent to only 15,000 tons of TNT (and today’s warplanes can carry the equivalent of eight million tons). So, after decades of negotiations, a few nations have only destroyed a portion of their excess weapons. They still have enough to consume away all flesh on earth, many times over.

At long last, governments are trying to work together for the good of all, but we have yet to see any evidence of our world growing truly peaceful. Instead, current events can remind us of Patrick Henry’s piercing observation: …men may cry, Peace, Peace! but there is no peace. The war has actually begun!⁴

Patrick Henry, the American revolutionary whose oratory still enthralls the world, also remarked, It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope.⁵ Hence, it is natural to hope that peace will prevail—but it is wisdom to prepare our minds and hearts for the worst, while we hope for the best.

If the best happens, we will all turn our hearts to each other and peace will envelop the world. If, however, you think the best is beyond belief, you’re probably right. More likely, we’ll do what we’ve always done: We will use our weapons, and darkness shall cover the earth.

If the darkness were to fall tomorrow, numberless people, cowering in terror, would beg for help from the God they never believed in, or they never really tried to understand, or they were sure they understood, though they refused to listen to all of His Messengers. Finally, they would succumb to despair and wither away for fear.

Therefore, I urge you to take command of the fear that tempts you to deny unwelcome realities, at least for the time it takes to read and consider what is said here. Open your eyes to the troubled world we often prefer to ignore. And open your heart and your ears to the Prophets of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, for then you can join me in thinking about their teachings. Together, far better than singly, they provide an understanding of the Almighty God and His messages that could light your way through any darkness that befalls you.

Chapter Two

Scientific Theories of How We Began

There was a Door to which I found no Key;

There was a Veil past which I could not see…

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

Translated by Edward Fitzgerald

Like us, our ancient ancestors wanted to know how, when, and why everything came into existence. Long before science tackled those questions, the Hebrew Scriptures provided answers. Today, however, even many devout believers in God no longer believe the Bible’s answers, at least not as organized religions have traditionally interpreted them. So, whether you are a believer or an unbeliever in the Biblical God, to gain a better understanding of Him and His messages, you might need a way to diminish the doubts and disbelief aroused by those traditional teachings, and by other unbelievable stories recorded in the Book of Genesis, the first Book of the Bible. Later, we’ll examine a few of those stories, to discover what they reveal in the light of modern knowledge. But, before we become involved with the Sacred Writings, we need to note the argument now raging between two scientific schools of thought over our own origin, in particular.

Even a brief examination of evolutionism versus creationism can help us realize that the often bitter dispute does not have to interfere with our study of the Prophets’ teachings. Nor does it matter which side of the argument you favor, for both sides will lead to the Prophets’ messages and to the God Who sent them.

Archaeology, as defined by Webster’s Dictionary, is the scientific study of material remains…of past human life and activities. To search for, retrieve, restore, and interpret ancient relics and artifacts requires the expertise of many different scholars. Geologists, physicists, chemists, biologists, and anthropologists are only a few of the scientists who contribute to our growing knowledge of prehistoric and ancient times. But individual scholars interpret some archaeological findings differently. Their disagreements are usually of little interest to laymen, except when they directly relate to man’s origin.

Theories about our origin are expressed by the two opposing scientific schools. One school teaches that man is the product of evolution; the other teaches that man is the product of special creation. To distinguish between them, scientists who support the evolution of man are called scientific evolutionists.

The theory of evolution, as it relates to man, begins with the emergence of cold-blooded fish. With time, some fish evolved into coldblooded amphibians, which can live in water and on land. Then, certain amphibians changed into cold-blooded reptiles. In turn, some reptiles evolved into warm-blooded birds, and others became warm-blooded mammals. We’re told that one line of mammals led to modern man.

Scientific evolutionists believe tool making is a talent unique to man. Hence, they associate specific tools with the animals they identify as modern man’s biological ancestors. (We need to remember, however, that those tools cannot prove our biological kinship with the creatures that made them. The tools, in themselves, only prove we modern men aren’t unique in our tool making.)

Evolutionists tell us the first creatures to use stones as tools lived about two and a half million years ago. Some authorities believe those creatures were knuckle-walkers; others think they could walk upright. Regardless of whether they needed their hands to help them walk, their fingers were nimble enough to pick up small rocks. Scholars believe the first toolmakers used the rocks to shred plants and to puncture animal hides their teeth couldn’t pierce.

The Latin word Homo means man. Therefore, scientists named the first species to use tools Homo habilis, the able man. A species is a group of organisms that share particular physical attributes. The easiest way for laymen to recognize members of the same animal species is to identify those that can mate and produce fertile offspring.

The theory of evolution says the able man evolved into a more capable species, known as Homo erectus, the upright man. Homo erectus appears to have survived for more than one and a half million years. The species includes the frequently mentioned Peking man and Java man, names that indicate the geographic areas where their remains were discovered.

It’s believed upright man deliberately chipped rocks, to make simple stone tools for chopping limbs from a carcass and scraping meat from hides. As the centuries passed, Homo erectus created larger, more carefully shaped tools for chopping, scraping, poking, and prying. In addition, 400,000 years ago, Peking man apparently used fire for cooking. But there is no evidence he knew how to start a fire, and we don’t know what induced him to cook flesh. Still, we can reasonably imagine him retrieving a carcass from a natural fire and finding it tastier or easier to chew than raw meat.

According to the evolutionary calendar, Homo neanderthalensis, the Neanderthal man, emerged around 250,000 years ago. The name refers to the Neander district in Germany. Today, Neanderthals are classified as Homo sapiens, the wise man, a title that officially identifies them as the first members of our species.

We’re told Neanderthals living 100,000 years ago were making comparatively sophisticated stone tools, including triangular knife blades and pointed scrapers. Burial sites prove that some of those Homo sapiens buried their dead. The discovery of tools in a few graves has led anthropologists to suspect that Neanderthals believed in an afterlife where tools would be needed.

In cold climates, Neanderthals fashioned clothing from animal hides and brought fire into their caves, for warmth and light. But they still had to find a fire; no evidence suggests they had learned how to start one. By 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals had become extinct, leaving the world to modern man.

Because Neanderthals are classified as Homo sapiens, we modern men are considered a subspecies. But we are endowed with the imposing title of Homo sapiens sapiens, the wise, wise man. Our species was the first to create fire at will. And we remain the only species that has learned how to create fire, whether we use two sticks or a nuclear bomb.

The preceding greatly abbreviated version of modern man’s evolution omits the names and dates of the many other creatures believed to be part of the evolutionary process—myriad details that can easily confuse laymen. Moreover, scientific evolutionists and historians unwittingly add to our confusion. They write educational articles and books about evolution. Their writings are also the basis of fictional stories about prehistoric times. All the authors write about someone they call man, but few authors identify the specific man they’re discussing!

For instance, you could read an article or story about early man roaming the earth, 40,000 years ago. The author is actually speaking of modern man, but he doesn’t make that fact plain. So, if you accept the theory of evolution, you could think the article is describing the first creatures identified as man. But then you might read a story about man’s activities 250,000 years ago, because that author is referring to the first Neanderthals. And another author might speak of early man as the Homo erectus that ate cooked meat 400,000 years ago, or the Homo habilis that used rocks as tools more than two million years ago. The conflicting references to man can leave casual students of evolution thoroughly bewildered.

Although authors apply the word man to different species, scientific evolutionists generally agree that about 40,000 years ago modern man became the only surviving form of Homo in the world. But some evolutionists have now altered their concept of how new species evolved. Originally, all evolutionists thought a new species resulted from continuous, gradual changes occurring over a long period. These days, some authorities think new species appeared abruptly, after long periods of little or no discernable change. That theory can account for the sudden appearance of new species in the fossil record. It can also explain gaps in the fossil record, though many evolutionists insist there are no significant gaps.

Scientists need to propose different hypotheses and argue among themselves to clarify their thinking. Laymen, however, can be easily misled by scientific evolutionists who voice their theories with absolute certainty and finality—which is hardly a new bad habit! We’ve all heard of the respected scholars who taught—with absolute certainty and finality—that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. Obviously, to this day, not all scientists have learned to be wary of absolutes.

In short, there are still scholars in all fields—including theologians—who speak as though they are uttering the last words on a subject. And there are still laymen who are willing to believe they’ve heard the last words.

* * *

In spite of the widespread popularity of evolutionism, there are scientists in practically all fields who reject the theory. As they interpret the evidence, no animal species has ever had its origin in a preexisting species. In other words, they don’t believe that any reptile gradually or abruptly changed into the first birds.

As time passes, environments change. These natural alterations lead to the extinction of some forms of life. But most forms remain unaffected, and others survive by producing new varieties of their own species. Those recurring events are not the basis of the current dispute. Scientists who reject evolutionism are rejecting the premise that one species can actually change into a wholly new species.

In the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin expected enough fossils would eventually be unearthed to prove the transition of species. By 1960, however, William Swinton, a paleontologist with the British Museum, could only tell us, The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.¹ Swinton’s words remain true today in relation to all fossil evidence, despite the occasional discovery of another missing link in an evolutionary chain. In truth, many evolutionists have abandoned hope that fossils, alone, will confirm the theory of evolution.

Regardless of missing evidence, evolutionists consider the fossil record extremely convincing. But they still have to base most of their conclusions on deductive reasoning, as Swinton explained.

Evidently, the reasoning of evolutionists hasn’t convinced all scientists. Those who reject evolutionism think that every species came into existence in its finished form. Furthermore, they believe the Biblical Creator of the universe created the forms. Hence, they are known as scientific creationists.

Creationists attack any weakness they find in the evidence and reasoning that supports the theory of evolution. For example, early on, evolutionists identified the Coelacanth, a presumed extinct family of fishes known only in fossil form, as the ancestor of a primitive amphibian. Later, a species of Coelacanth was discovered alive and well in African waters. Evolutionists do not perceive the existence of that one living species as a reason to abandon their theory about the Coelacanth’s role in evolution. But the discovery prompted Henry Morris, a prominent American scientific creationist, to comment: It is hard to see how these fish could have become amphibians when they are still the same as they were a hundred million years ago.²

In reality, Morris didn’t believe the earth itself is a hundred million years old. Creationists believe the earth is young. (Consequently, they believe that Neanderthals, many of whom appear to have suffered from rickets, did not live hundreds of thousands of years before us, but were a sickly race of modern men—the only form of man that creationists believe has ever existed.) To support their theory of a young earth, creationists cite what they consider to be sound physical evidence that the earth’s geologic formations were rapidly formed.

Scientific creationists, however, aren’t solely concerned with challenging the research and conclusions of evolutionists. They spend much of their time investigating the Great Flood, and other disputed events described in the Hebrew Scriptures. They hope modern scientific techniques can verify those events. Still, like evolutionists, creationists have to rely largely on deductive reasoning to support their conclusions. And, like evolutionists, they often voice their opinions with absolute certainty and finality, as though they’re actually speaking the last words on a subject.

* * *

The bitter dispute between the two schools of thought includes frequent attempts by both sides to publicly discredit the opposition’s research techniques and deductions. And both schools accuse each other of publishing information intended to convince the public of facts that the scholars know to be reasonably debatable.

For all the arguments, few scientific evolutionists openly challenge their opponents’ academic qualifications. But many accuse creationists of allowing their religious beliefs to lead them into practicing bad science. And creationists accuse their accusers of severely inflating their own knowledge, in their zealous effort to advance their cherished theory of evolution.

Creationists have often been subjected to public ridicule. Yet, their very existence proves that some knowledgeable persons do not accept the evolution of man as a cut-and-dried fact. While that’s an important point to prove, creationists have proven little else—which leaves both schools of thought in the same position! Obviously, no one has witnessed or can prove the special creation of anything. And no one has witnessed or found incontrovertible evidence of any species evolving, gradually or abruptly, into a wholly new one. Researchers from both schools have only examined remains from the past and developed theories about them.

Of course, each group believes the evidence soundly supports its own position. And each school accuses the other of only respecting the research techniques that support its own theories. For instance, dating methods are a constant source of dispute. Scientists can calculate age in different ways, but radiometric dating now plays a leading role.

Radiocarbon dating is a particularly popular method. But world experts in radiochemistry, geology, and other fields soon reported a serious inconsistency in radiocarbon formation. Those reports caused evolutionists to restrict their use of radiocarbon dating to specimens no more than 40,000 years old (though they’ve now extended that period). Creationists, however, claim that radiocarbon cannot be relied on to date specimens over 3,000 years old. That is an enormous difference of opinion held by accredited scientists on the accuracy of just one dating technique. Its enormity can reasonably cause laymen to take all scientific dates with the proverbial grain of salt. And that gives us reason to focus on what appears to have happened, instead of when it might have happened.

While evolutionists and creationists do not respect each other’s research or conclusions, there are members of both schools who agree on something that appears to have happened. Many evolutionists and all creationists believe that a Thinking Power created the universe. Some believe that Power is the Biblical God; others perceive the Power differently. Nevertheless, they see a magnificent universe ruled by identifiable laws, and a planet that appears flawlessly designed to produce and sustain intelligent life. Their reasoning has led them to believe that a Superior Intelligence is responsible for the whole astonishing structure.

On the other hand, some scientists spurn the idea of a Master Designer deliberately designing a planet to support life. At first, these scholars believed the random shuffling of simple molecules gradually produced more complex ones. Continued random shuffling finally resulted in living molecules. Nowadays, many of these scientists prefer more complex theories. No matter the theory they favor, they do not try to identify the ultimate origin of physical matter, but they steadfastly deny the existence of a Thinking Power that purposely created anything.

In the meantime, their peers remain mindful of the veil beyond which science has not seen. Therefore, they wonder how anyone, especially someone trained in impartial observation, can allow himself to be absolutely certain a Superior Intelligence does not dwell beyond it.

All the while, innumerable laymen and scholars believe that the principal question facing mankind doesn’t rest in evolution versus special creation. Those are only methods through which everything could have emerged. They think the primary question is whether everything exists by accident or on purpose. At least for now, science can’t answer that question; everyone has to decide for himself.

Chapter Three

A Meeting Ground for Religion and Science

It is not so much what we see as what the thing seen suggests.

Jonathan Swift

Signs and Seasons

For a certainty, countless believers in God have thought of their own child’s conception as an accident. Still, that often troublesome fact of life hasn’t prevented them from believing that life itself exists on purpose. Today, however, all believers do not agree on how each form of life acquired its physical structure.

Some people firmly adhere to the traditional interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures’ creation story. That interpretation says God formed …every living thing that moves… (Genesis 1:21), which means the individual species can have internal and external physical similarities, but each was God’s special creation.

Although traditional believers deny the evolution of any species, they’re particularly offended by the assertion that man evolved from apelike creatures. The Bible plainly tells us that God made man in His Own image (Gen. 1:26). The Koran also says God …created man in a most noble image… (The Fig 95:4). Granted, believers hold different ideas of what it means to image God. For example, some believe that the human spirit, if uncorrupted, would perfectly reflect the Divine Spirit. Others believe that the human body is a material reflection of its Divine Creator and, therefore, we must treat our bodies as holy instruments. In spite of their various concepts, most if not all believers agree that we image God in our ability to think.

Regardless of personal definitions, the Bible states that God bestowed His image on humans, alone, and He