The first few chapters of Genesis, which give the biblical account of Creation, may well be the most underrated text in existence! It has been misunderstood by many either read very naively as a simplistic description, or otherwise regarded as a bit of of the patchwork employed by a final redactor of the text. The vast majority of scientists regard it as infra dig. Ancient Hebrew thought patterns were quite different from our own. They were less interested in the process than in the origin -- the Creator in the Creation stories and the result. Symbolism, exemplified in numbers and colors, were tremendously important. Central to all their thinking was the worship of the LORD God Almighty and the tabernacle, which was later replaced by the temple. All this has a bearing on our interpretation of Genesis. The best translation of Gen 1:2 is as follows: Gen 1:2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Spirit of God was hovering over the water. (Gods Word) The two terms, formless and empty, are the first key to understand what follows, namely a giving shape to that which had no form, and then filling the forms. The whole description speaks of a dynamic system, not a rigid structure cast in concrete. What transpires in the end is that there is no conflict between Creation and Evolution, except that the naturalists natural selection was actually divine selection, not a random process, but a directed development to reach a very specific goal. The Christian believer should take comfort in the fact that our Bible is in perfect harmony with the best up-to-date science. The scientist should take note that the biblical account had to be inspired by God to relate something of real meaning to us through an author who had no proper knowledge of the universe and no understanding of evolution.

Whether Vedic people were indigenous habitants or emigrants is a hotly debated current issue. Both sides involved in the debate have been vehemently using the available evidences, with twists – caused at times due to sheer neglect and at times even fraudulently - to bring home their point of view, somehow. Nevertheless, what is the truth? Were there ever any migrations of so-called PIE language speakers, located at some hypothetical and yet uncertain homeland, to spread the language and culture? Are migrations necessary from any hypothetical homeland to result into a net of the languages? What was the geography of Rig Veda? Was the Avesta contemporaneous to the Rig Veda? Did any relation ever exist between the Vedic people and the Indus-Ghaggar civilisation? Is there any relationship between the Vedic religion and the modern Hindu religion? While answering to these vital questions, this book postulates a theory on the issue of the so-called IE languages and origins of the Vedic as well as the Zoroastrian religions. It diligently explains how the religious and cultural ethos of the Indus-Ghaggar Civilisation has flowed to us uninterrupted and exposes the schemes of the Vedicist scholars, who are attempting to claim its authorship!

How should we study religion? Must we be religious ourselves to truly understand it? Do we study religion to advance our knowledge, or should the study of religions help to reintroduce the sacred into our increasingly secularized world? Juraj Franek argues that the study of religion has long been split into two competing paradigms: reductive (naturalist) and non-reductive (protectionist). While the naturalistic approach seems to run the risk of explaining religious phenomena away, the protectionist approach appears to risk falling short of the methodological standards of modern science. Franek uses primary source material from Greek and Latin sources to show that both competing paradigms are traceable to Presocratic philosophy and early Christian literature. He presents the idea that naturalists are distant heirs, not only of the French Enlightenment, but also of the Ionian one. Likewise, he argues that protectionists owe much of their arguments and strategies, not only to Luther and the Reformation, but to the earliest Christian literature. This book analyses the conflict between reductive and non-reductive approach in the modern study of religions, and positions the Cognitive Science of Religion against a background of previous theories - ancient and modern - to demonstrate its importance for the revindication of the naturalist paradigm.

Explores the interplay of medicine and religion in Western societies. Medicine and Religion is the first book to comprehensively examine the relationship between medicine and religion in the Western tradition from ancient times to the modern era. Beginning with the earliest attempts to heal the body and account for the meaning of illness in the ancient Near East, historian Gary B. Ferngren describes how the polytheistic religions of ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome and the monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have complemented medicine in the ancient, medieval, and modern periods. Ferngren paints a broad and detailed portrait of how humans throughout the ages have drawn on specific values of diverse religious traditions in caring for the body. Religious perspectives have informed both the treatment of disease and the provision of health care. And, while tensions have sometimes existed, relations between medicine and religion have often been cooperative and mutually beneficial. Religious beliefs provided a framework for explaining disease and suffering that was larger than medicine alone could offer. These beliefs furnished a theological basis for a compassionate care of the sick that led to the creation of the hospital and a long tradition of charitable medicine. Praise for Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity, by Gary B. Ferngren "This fine work looks forward as well as backward; it invites fuller reflection of the many senses in which medicine and religion intersect and merits wide readership."—JAMA "An important book, for students of Christian theology who understand health and healing to be topics of theological interest, and for health care practitioners who seek a historical perspective on the development of the ethos of their vocation."—Journal of Religion and Health