What "The Law Was Added Because of Transgression" Means

There is a great deal of confusion surrounding the meaning of Paul's words to the Galatians when he said:

Wherefore then [serveth] the law?  It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (Gal. 3:19).

It's really simple, though.  Of course, I encourage each one to read the entire context.  Here, though, I simply want to lay it out for those who still don't get it, even after reading the context and reading the entire bible.

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve on the sixth work day.  He didn't lay out an endless number of statutes for them.  He didn't overwhelm them with a lot of rules.  Anyone who honestly just reads the opening of Genesis can see that he put them in the garden, told them to take care of it and told them what they could eat for food.  The tree of life was also in the garden, and then there was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and God told Adam and Eve that they were not to eat from that tree, or else they would die.  We then know the next day was the seventh day that was sanctified and hallowed, so right from the beginning we see the Sabbath day, the signature mark of the Creator.  So things started out in a very BASIC way. 

Now, we must ask, WHAT is the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil?"  WHAT is the knowledge of good and evil?  What do we call something that lets us know what is good and what is evil?  Would we not call that law?  Of course!  Adam and Eve were alive and well, and everything was going smoothly, until they allowed themselves to be deceived by the serpent.  Notice what happened.  Back in Genesis 2:25 Adam and Eve were naked but were not ashamed, just as young children that do not yet know good from evil are not ashamed.  They thought nothing of it.  No one TOLD them it was wrong.  God did not say, "Oh, and make sure you stay dressed with clothes, because it is not good for you to be naked."  But, after they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, their eyes were opened, and they suddenly realized they were naked and covered themselves.  They later told the Lord (the one who is the Firstborn of the Father) they were hiding from him because they were naked.  He replied, "Who told you that you were naked?  Did you eat from the tree from which I told you not to eat?"

Does this not remind you of what Paul said several thousand years later?  Read Romans chapter 7, where he talks about how the law gives knowledge of what is good or evil and that he was alive once without the law, but then the commandment came, sin revived, and he died.

EVERY person on this earth, since Adam and Eve ate from the fruit, if they live long enough, comes to a point where their eyes are opened, and they know good from evil.  Infants start out innocent and UNKNOWING of good and evil.  Small children do not know that being naked in front of others is bad.  They do not know that putting their fingers into electric sockets is evil.  Little kids do not realize that crawling off the high bed is evil.  They don't know these things bring bad consequences!  Not until they transgress!  THEN once they transgress, they know there is good and evil!  Was killing and stealing and lying and such wrong from the beginning, before Adam and Eve knew it was wrong, before they ate from that tree?  Of course it was!  Did they have such ideas?  Was there any written law with judgments laying all this out?  No, there was not!  Would it have been good for them to have clothes on from the beginning?  Yes!  But, were they at fault for not having on clothes?  No, they had never been given any idea that it was wrong!  

If you read my study on the tree of life, you will learn that the tree of life represents Christ.  How do we get eternal life?  There is only ONE way to salvation, and that is through Salvation the Anointed One, Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah).  It's his sacrifice in our place that gives us the gift of eternal life for those who repent of sin [transgression of the law], are baptized, and the receive the Holy Spirit (the seed of God so that we can be born as sons of  God at the resurrection).

I try to keep it as simple as possible for my children.  The Ten Commandments are summed up by love God with all your heart, mind, and life and love your neighbor as you love yourself.  I tell them the Ten Commandments teach us how to do these things.  I do not bombard them with a laundry list of things they should do, though, to protect themselves, to protect others, and to protect property.  BUT, if they transgress in some way, it becomes needful at times that I ADD LAW.

Just last night my husband was saying to my parents, concerning buying a third game controller, "I've been needing to buy another one, anyway, in case the kids tear up one."  This was said in front of our children.  This is a no-no, of course, but who is not guilty of doing this at some point?  Most parents realize that suggesting this sort of thing in front of our kids puts the idea into their head to do evil.  Whereas before, doing such a thing probably would not have crossed their minds, now they are tempted to do just that.  Now, does this also sound familiar?  Remember what Paul said about the law killing him, because we tend to want to do the opposite of what it says?  Any experienced parent knows this is the case with children.

Would I tell my young child, "I just put some matches up in this cabinet.  Now don't get into these and start a fire?"  NO!  I would put the matches up there in hopes that my child will not be snoopy and get into such a thing.  I am not going to put the idea into his head to get into the matches.  Most children will have a strong temptation to do the exact opposite of what you commanded.  Not all children would actually follow through with it, but there would be a strong temptation, whereas if you kept your mouth shut, it would likely not be an issue.  Now,  let's say nothing was said, but one day the child got into the cabinet for one reason or another, and he happened to see the matches then.  It was an unlikely event, but it happened.  He was then tempted to use them.  Still, a child could make the choice not to do so.  But, sometimes a child does.   If the latter occurred, THEN law would have to be added.  YES!  That's right.  Oral or written law added AFTER transgression.  The law is holy, just, and good, meaning what is good is good, but what was good was good before the giving of the law in a written organized form, full with judgments and then the added rituals.  There were faithful and obedient people serving God BEFORE the added law.  There were already people following the spiritual law, as written on their hearts, not killing, fornicating, stealing, etc.  Yet, some transgressed, so it was needful for an ADDED law in written form, complete with JUDGMENTS for transgression.  The animal sacrifices, human priesthood, etc. was to REALLY POINT OUT TO CARNAL-NATURED PEOPLE HOW SERIOUS TRANSGRESSION WAS. 

Is that not why so many statutes are ADDED to the U.S. law code (or ANY law code)?  The invention of motor vehicles, for example, as a new thing here.  AFTER transgression, namely wrecks that caused people's bodies to be flung through the windshields, law was ADDED to include use of seat belts.  At some point, law was ADDED for babies and young children to be put in car seats.  Is someone foolish enough to say that this law is bad?  What fool is willing to say this is a bad law?  Is it for the GOOD?  Is it to save lives?  YES!  Now, would there be some fool out there who claims that this is wrongful adding to God's law?  Probably so.  Now, it is indeed BETTER, as it is under the new covenant, to be led by the Spirit, to have God's law written on our HEARTS, choosing good because we want to do what is right, NOT because there is some written law that has judgments if transgressed.  In that case, all that would have to be done is seat belts and car seats would be invented, proven to save lives, and then what fool would not want to use them?  A wise person uses them, because he is following God's law of love as written on his or her heart, NOT because the U.S. law mandates them, for we know that not all man made laws are good.  SOME are, though, and if it's a life-giving law, then why wouldn't a person follow it?

With increase of KNOWLEDGE, there is more to be decided on what is good and evil.  I've written explanation time and again of this.  If Moses lived today and was told to give a written law to Israel, it would NOT simply say, concerning safety in housing, "You must build a rail around the top of your roof so that no one falls off."  Why, that would likely not even be included, because it DOES NOT APPLY.  We do not have flat roofs that we walk upon and use in our every day lives, like people did in ancient Israel.  However, there would be statutes like, "Don't let bare wires be exposed in your homes," and "Do not leave electric sockets exposed so that young children do not stick their fingers in them."  It would not be just, "Eat only animals that have split hooves and chew the cud," etc., but it would likely be, "Do not eat McDonald's french fries," etc.  What fool is there out there who would actually say that the food regulations as given in the law of Moses is good enough and everything else is fine to eat without control?  We do not live in that age! 

Of course, those of us who are Spirit-led and have God's law written on our hearts, following the law in the spirit, understand this.  Believe it or not, though, there are folks out there who believe ONLY what was written by Moses for that day is what applies and that there is no new covenant, only a renewed old covenant.  Makes you wonder why those people even bother claiming they have faith in the Messiah, for what would the point of his coming and sacrifice be if the old covenant was simply going to be renewed.  That could have been done by any prophet, and there would have been no need of Salvation's sacrifice.  There would be no need of a new covenant Passover Lamb.  If the old covenant was good enough, some prophet simply could have come on the scene to remind people to be circumcised in the penile flesh, go to the temple in Jerusalem for the feasts, have the priests offer animal sacrifices for the people's sins and their own, etc. 

If people would READ the words of people like David, who lived in the time of the old covenant, but who had the Spirit of God, they would see that those few people who lived in that time who had God's Spirit had a new covenant mindset.  I don't think people are reading the scriptures for what they say!

Yes, the fact is that most people are CARNAL.  They are fleshly-minded.  Many do not care to follow any law, certainly not to have it written on their hearts.  But, there are others who like others to THINK they are righteous (think of the carnal Pharisees whom Jesus criticized over and over), and so they cling to the old covenant things like penile circumcision, wearing fringes in the garments, etc. so that they appear righteous to others and so they can say to those who don't do those things, "Look at us.  We are pleasing to God."  Really?  What goes on in their hearts, we must wonder.  What kind of daily fruit do they bear?  In my experience, those who believe old covenant regulations are binding (like penile circumcision) are so much like the Pharisees that Jesus called hypocrites.

Those who believe the law was not ADDED because of transgression need to get studying the scriptures.  They need to get a solid understanding of the first two chapters of Genesis, because they obviously do not already understand it.  Christ is even recorded of giving examples of where the law of Moses fell short.  He said certain things, like a man divorcing a wife if he was not pleased with her, was allowed for the HARDNESS OF THEIR HEARTS (yes, that's right, they may have had circumcised penises, but they had uncircumcised hearts), but FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO.  YES!!!!!!!!!!  Even the Lord said with his own mouth that the law of Moses was ADDED.  Obviously is was, if something was not so from the beginning, but it was then allowed in the old covenant law of Moses to be more lax.  Obviously penile circumcision was not from the beginning. Of course not.  That would mean God would have made a mistake with the penis, since he could have just made the penis without the foreskin that extends beyond the head of the penis.  It was ADDED.  It was given to Abraham as a sign of the covenant.  Then later some of his descendants (namely the children of Israel) became slaves to Egypt, and so God worked out a way for them to be freed from bondage, and then he had Moses give them the law and the Levitical priesthood, etc. That was the beginning of the old covenant.  BEFORE the Levitical priesthood, there was a different priesthood.  People offered to the high priest Melchisadek, which was really the Lord.  NOW it is as before.  The old covenant with its law, priesthood, sacrifices, etc.  were TEMPORARY.  They were to last UNTIL it was replaced with something better.

I hope that if you have not before grasped what "the law was added because of transgression" means, that you now understand it.  God did NOT bombard Adam and Eve with a bunch of regulations.  He kept it simple.  They ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, sin entered this world, and much later the law of Moses was ADDED because of all the transgression.  Yes, there was law that was being broken BEFORE the law being added in a written form (along with additional rituals and sacrifices), just as if a child does something he shouldn't, but just because the transgression occurred doesn't mean the law had been given.  If there is transgression, law then becomes needful so that if continually transgressed, punishment can be given. 

BUT, if people have God's Spirit to circumcise their hearts and so have the law written on their hearts, there is LIFE.  There is no need for the old covenant set-up, because the promise was given--Christ.  And the PROMISE OF THE MESSIAH WAS GIVEN TO ABRAHAM HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE THE OLD COVENANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  As the law states, and Paul repeated, one is CURSED to not do all the things in the law of Moses, if one chooses to enter that covenant.  Many of those things are IMPOSSIBLE to do, seeing as we have no temple in Jerusalem, etc.  Now, does this all make those things wrong?  Is penile circumcision wrong?  No, but it is wrong to say it must be done for salvation.  That was the old covenant that said, "Cursed is the man who does not do all the things of the law."  Of course, no one could ever do it perfectly, and the death of animals and penile circumcision (especially when done to a child who did not make a conscious choice of having it done) does not save a person.  Only the Spirit of God and obeying Him in Spirit will save a person, under the new covenant that was instituted with Christ's blood being shed.

The law of Moses was indeed ADDED because of transgressions.  People like Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham all served God in obedience in faith (looking forward to the promise) BEFORE the law of Moses was added.  So it is now no different under the new covenant.  Many obey God--putting Him first, not bowing down to images, not holding up His name in useless worship, keeping the seventh day holy, honoring their parents, not killing anyone, not committing sexual sin, not stealing, not lying, and not coveting what is not rightfully theirs--all in its spiritual intent.  That means they are not even thinking of these evils.  They don't need some judgment clause in a written law to keep them from committing acts. No, they do NOT WANT to even think about doing those things.  They hate evil in their hearts.  They do not feel the need to have outer symbols in the flesh that only serve to receive praise from men.  Only God fully knows our hearts, and regardless of how good we act on the outside, if we're not clean on the inside, the outside stuff doesn't matter.

Even the other nations who do not have the knowledge of the fourth commandment passed down, if following the law as written on their hearts (knowing there must be a Creator and so being thankful to Him, taking care of the earth, honoring their parents, not killing, not fornicating, not stealing nor destroying property, not lying, nor wanting something not rightfully theirs).  When they are raised up to life during the "Great White Throne Judgment," they will have their eyes opened to the truth of who God is and what his Sabbath was, etc.  These people who did what was right in their hearts, because they wanted to do what was right, will put to shame those who had penile circumcision yet did not have the right heart.

Just as those BEFORE the law was added obeyed, we obey.

My closest co-worker in Christ, Keith Hunt, has written more about this, found within his expounding of Galatians.  The part which deals with the law being added because of transgression is found here: http://www.keithhunt.com/Ntacts21.html.  If you want to study further, I recommend the link.

Review of the Movie "Stone"

Recently, I watched a newly-released-to-video movie called Stone.  I want to first say, as I do in any movie review I do, if you do not want the details of the movie spoiled, if you plan to watch it, then do not read this until after you've watched the movie.  Furthermore, I want to state that this movie is an adults-only movie.  Not only is there a violent stabbing scene, numerous calling down of curses from God and many profane words, but there is sexual content and partial nudity that is better off not seen by anyone.  

Wikipedia calls the movie a "box office bomb," stating that it brought in only a third of its production budget.  I do feel that this is a disappointment, because it has a message that most in our nation really need to grasp.  I have observed, though, that though I and a minute few others actually get something out of movies, most only seek to be entertained by the violence, sexual content, the looks of the actors and actresses themselves, etc. and do not really pay attention to the underlying MESSAGES that so many movies reveal.

The movie's four main characters are about-to-retire Jack Mabry, Jack's wife Madylyn, 20-or-30-something Gerald "Stone" Creeson, and his wife Lucetta.  The movie starts out with a non-introduced young Jack and Madylyn Mabry and their young daughter.  The woman carries her daughter to her bed upstairs and kisses her so that she can continue her nap.  She sits on the bed for a minute staring at a fly buzzing around the screen of the open window.  She then goes downstairs and tells her husband something to the effect of, "You're keeping my soul in a prison.  I'm leaving," to which the non-introduced Jack responds by jumping out of his chair and storming upstairs.

Obviously worried, Jack's wife runs up the stairs after he's gone up, shouting after him.  She finds him in their daughter's room, hanging his daughter out the window and threatening his wife that if she leaves him, he'll drop their daughter.  She says she won't leave and pleads for him to bring their sleeping daughter back inside.  After he lays the girl back on the bed, the wife hurries to the window and slams it shut on the fly, which kills the latter.  I think the fly's death is something most won't even think much about, but I find it interesting that it was included.  A creature with a nasty job, viewed as a nuisance was killed by the woman who saved her daughter from being killed.  It was if it was a just substitute.  The man had removed the screen, so the fly then had the opportunity it wanted to leave, but it must have swarmed around the room.  Before it could finally be free, it was killed.

Then the movie moves to the present, showing scenes of an Episcopalian (Protestant Christian) Jack Mabry and his wife attending church services; scenes of Jack, a corrections officer, in his office talking to Gerald Creeson; scenes of Jack and Madylyn in their home, often with prayer and devotionals at meal times, it being clearly evident that Madylyn is serious about her faith, whereas Jack is not so much; scenes of Jack driving in his car, usually listening to radio with Christian broadcasting; scenes of Lucetta calling Jack or meeting Jack; and scenes of Lucetta visiting Gerald in prison.

Toward the beginning of the movie, Jack meets with Gerald in Jack's office.  Gerald has served eight years of eleven sentenced for arson.  He's available for possible parole, so Jack is reviewing his case.  Gerald demands to be called "Stone," because that is what everyone who knows him calls him.  He talks with an attitude, and his language is heavily laced with profanity.  His hair is in rows of tight braids.  He tells Jack that he's ready to get out, and Jack asks him whether it's because he's reformed, to which Gerald says that he's paid time, and he's ready to get out.  He has not really gone through any change for the better, though he does say something interesting to Jack.  He inquired why he had to be in the prison and why Jack could be free, and Jack said that he hadn't "broken the law."  Stone (Gerald) basically said, "You mean to tell me you haven't done anything wrong in your life?"

Stone calls his wife from prison and urges her to talk to Jack and do anything she could to get Jack to give Gerald a good report so that he could be released.  Lucetta more or less stalks Jack, calling him at home and stopping him outside his workplace.   He finally agrees to meet privately with her.  She plays the sweet and seductive role very well.  Long story short, she persuades him to go to her house, and she gets him drunk and has sex with him.

Meanwhile, Stone is having a difficult time being in prison.  He desperately wants out.  He goes to the prison library and starts sorting through religious literature.  Poor guy.  There are so many things from which to pick, he's not sure where to start.  He finally chooses a pamphlet on a religion Zangkugor or something.  I can't remember the name of it, nor do I know whether it's a real religion or made for the movie.  It teaches a doctrine of karma and reincarnation and that humming a certain way will help you get in a certain zone where then you can hear a  natural sound, like a bee buzzing and find harmony or God in it.

It is not within the scope of this review to deeply discuss such religions as Zangkugor or whatever it was called, and the true God does not call everyone to understand truth during this phase of his seven-step plan of salvation for mankind.  But, the main point is that Gerald did go through a spiritual change.  He finally felt guilty for burning his grandparents' house down.  He started asking questions like, "What is forever?"  He cleaned up his speech tremendously.  It was no longer filled with profanity, and he spoke more intelligently.  He got his hair out of braids (certainly not to say that braids are sinful).

At the same time, Jack feels convicted of his adultery with another man's wife and clearly feels very uncomfortable around both his own wife and around Gerald.  The tables have turned, and Jack is the one whose language is filled with profanity and yelling, where Gerald sits calmly and asks Jack questions out of concern, which only enrages Jack more.  Jack is obviously a tormented soul, and Gerald is at peace.  He said it didn't matter now whether he was in prison or out.  Gerald's spirit was free within him, where Jack's spirit was in tormenting bondage to his sin, because he really did believe there was a God but wanted to deny it in order to justify his sin to himself and so to avoid confessing his sin and apologizing to those he wronged and repent--change, get on the right track.

Jack's wife is visibly hurt but also disgusted with Jack's behavior.  She has her womanly instincts and wise discernment and asks Jack whether there is anything he needed to tell her.  He's very short and profane with everyone with whom he has contact now.

Jack decides he wants to change the good report on Gerald, even though now it should be clear to a wisely discerning judge that Gerald has true grounds to be released.  He's truly gone through a spiritual change, serving in liberty under some law in which he believed.

Madylyn leaves Jack, after burning their home down and getting away with it (the same crime Gerald had done for other reasons), and goes to their daughter's home.  The daughter says to her mother that she is so surprised that she waited so long and didn't leave a long time ago.  She said, "I tried once..." as she stares into another time, not answering her daughter's inquiry, "What happened?"  We're left to wonder whether Madylyn tells her daughter the story about her father hanging her out the window.

It also appears that Gerald left his whorish wife Lucetta.  I find it interesting that the name Lucetta was chosen for her character.  Her name means "light," but she's very deceptive and seductive, only appearing as a person of light.  In one scene she showed to be at work at a daycare or school, out on the playground with young children, and she was very patient and gentle-spoken.  She was sugary sweet when seducing Jack.  In truth, she was full of darkness.  She verbally expressed to Jack, upon being asked, that she did not believe in God.  She made her own good and bad, delighting in what she saw right in her own eyes.

Jack is driving down a street one night and happens to see Gerald walking.  He stops, takes a gun from his car, gets out of the car, and chases Gerald down.  He has him in a place of darkness and starts cursing him and pushes him up against the wall of a building.  He presses the barrel of the gun to Gerald's forehead and falsely accuses Gerald of ruining his life.  Gerald is calm throughout the whole scenario, which pisses off Jack even more.  He threatens, "You don't think I'll kill you?!"  Gerald calmly replies, "No, I don't."  He's right, as Jack eventually takes the gun away and leaves.  Jack (meaning "man") has an exceedingly sinful heart, but he does not want to break the PHYSICAL law of the land and so be imprisoned physically.  Nevertheless, he's in SPIRITUAL bonds, spiritually imprisoned, in bondage to his sin. 

A person can be free in God's eyes while in physical bondage (in prison), and a person who is physically free can be in spiritual bondage.  There are many who care about what man thinks and so will put on outward show of being righteous, but they are not fooling God who judges the heart and mind.  Many do not want to humble themselves and repent of their sins.  They have hearts of stone.  Gerald started out as "Stone," and he was indeed hardened.  But, he underwent a spiritual transformation, and his heart softened.  In the end, it was Jack who had the stony heart and chose to remain in tormenting spiritual bondage, rather than humbly confess his sins and repent.  There are many who sit in buildings made by man, imprisoned who are spiritually free, and there are many, many more who, although physically free, are imprisoned by their sin and their refusal to free themselves by humbly repenting.

At the age of 18 I was charged with credit card fraud across interstate lines.  When I was 20, I was served papers by the Secret Service and a U.S. marshal and summoned to court a U.S. district court to enter a plea.  I entered a plea of guilty.  I had shown a complete turnaround.  In the end, I was not convicted of the crime, though I was guilty and had pled guilty.  I received GRACE upon my repentance.  Many looked down on me with great judgment for one of the lesser sins of the Ten Commandments, one of the only sins that did not require the physical death penalty if physically transgressed.  Those same people were guilty of greater sins and great sins of the heart, sins of which they do not repent.  But, those physical sins and those greater sins of the heart are not punished by the law in place by man of this land.  Though those same people claim to be Christians, they care more about the law of man and what man thinks than what God thinks.

Which are YOU?  Were you a Stone that is now changed, or are you a Jack who is physically free and looked upon through the eyes of man as "a good person" but are in spiritual bondage to your sin and "wicked" through the eyes of God?

Books, Courses, and Documentaries of 2010 and a Look at 2011

This post lists the books, documentaries, and courses I read and watched during the course of the last Roman year, and then I'm posting my planned books-to-read and courses-to-watch for this Roman year.  This does not include the various scientific and historical studies and articles I've read, scientific magazines, things read to the children, nor any other educational reading, nor does it include my bible readings and studies.  This kind of post each year is helpful to me and is not necessarily helpful to anyone else. 

Books I Read in 2010:

Finished reading Nature Got There First: Inventions Inspired by Nature by Phil Gates

What a Difference a Daddy Makes by Dr. Kevin Leman

DMT: The Spirit Molecule by Dr. Rick Strassman

Too Busy Not to Pray by Bill Hybels

The Truth Shall Set You Free:  Herbert Armstrong's Empire Exposed by John Tuit

Women in the Church:  A Biblical Study on the Role of Women in the Church by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi

The Story of V: A Natural History of Female Sexuality by Catherine Blackledge

The Mediterranean Diet Cookbook by Nancy Jenkins (does not include reading all the recipes included)

Almost finished with Married for Life by Bill Morelan (reading along with Nathan)

I wrote and published the book God's Law of Love:  The Perfect Law of Liberty

Courses I Watched in 2010:

Linguistics:  The Science of Language by Professor John McWhorter

The Story of Human Language by Professor John McWhorter

The History of the English Language by Professor Seth Lerer


and part of Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution by Professor Richard Wolfson

Documentaries I Watched in 2010:

11th Hour

Love, Hate, and Propaganda

Botany of Desire
  
Collapse

I.O.U.S.A.

Constantine's Sword

***************************

Books I Plan to Read in 2011:

To finish Married for Life by Bill Morelan (reading w/ Nathan)


In Search of Dad by Charles Newbold, Jr.

DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice  edited by David Lazer

Adam, Eve, and the Genome edited by Susan Thistlethwaite

Girls! by William Beausay & Kathryn Beausay

Faith Training:  Raising Kids Who Love the Lord by Dr. Joe White

And re-reading the content of what is about to become the book The Biblical Prophets for Today  by Keith Hunt

Courses I Plan to Watch in 2011:

 To finish Einstein's Relativity and the Quantum Revolution by Professor Richard Wolfson

Biology and Human Behavior: The Neurological Origins of Individuality by Professor Robert Sapolsky

Understanding the Brain by Professor Jeanette Norden

Understanding Genetics by Professor David Sadava

and The Joy of Science by Professor Robert M. Hazen


Documentaries I Plan to Watch in 2011:

I AM (will be released in theaters Feb. 18)

and whatever else I decide through the coming months