The Apple Of God's Eye

August 9, 2009

Questions On Evolution: Scientific Fact Or Science Fiction?

The origin of life is the least understood biological problem.

While acknowledging this fact, evolutionists go on to believe as an article of faith that life came into existence on this planet spontaneously from nonliving matter by chemical processes. They further accept as an article of faith that life progressively evolved by blind chance into the vast array of living things we see today. This belief is claimed to be “fact.” Those who do not accept this “fact” are ridiculed as ignorant and unscientific.

Is evolution scientific fact, or is it science fiction? The odds are fantastic against even very “simple” constituents of living organisms occurring by chance. And there is an even greater improbability of such constituents producing living organisms by chance.

In particular consider a protein consisting of a chain of about 100 amino acids. If all the known stars in the universe had 10 earths, and if all the earths had oceans of “amino acid soup,” and if all the amino acids linked up in chains 100 acids long every second for the entire estimated history of the universe, even then the chance occurrence of a given very simple protein would be extremely improbable.  As such, below you will find answered a number of the more common evolutionary counterarguments, as well as additional queries:

  • There may be many combinations of amino acids that would work. So the probability of their forming by chance would be much greater than that of a specific combination.

No scientific experimentation has shown that a different combination of amino acids could be substituted for a given protein and still perform exactly the same way. The marvelous complexity of the specific functions performed by the combination that does work in nature demands the correct sequence of amino acids to be present in each case. (We are aware, of course, that various proteins may be consumed and reassembled into other proteins by an existing living organism.)

A given life form requires specific combinations of specific molecules. Just any arbitrary random combination will not work. It is much like a combination lock. If you do not know the combination, you can spin numbers at random to try to open the lock. You may spin perfectly good numbers. They might even work on some other lock at some other time and in some other place. But if they do not open the given lock — the one you are trying to open — it does not do you a bit of good.

Now if you would calculate the probability of finding the right combination by random spinning, the probability depends only on the available numbers for the given lock. The probability has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not some other combinations may open some other locks.

  • If you do not specify which protein, we are therefore only dealing in possibilities not probabilities.

You should use the standard mathematical definition of probability as applicable to the problem under discussion. The probability of a given protein of 100 amino acids occurring by chance is 10-130. The fact that that a specific one was not identified is irrelevant. If it were a more technical article, a  specified complicated protein like hemoglobin, would be pointed out, and there would be used essentially the same line of reasoning. The point is that even the supposedly simplest components found in living things are actually very complex. Their existence cannot be explained on the basis of blind chance.

  • The experiments of Stanley L. Miller in the 1950s showed that the “primeval soup” of the sea would contain surprisingly large quantities of the building blocks of life: amino acids, nucleotides, etc.

Whether or not this is the case does not matter. In fact, we can be even more generous than Mr. Miller by giving each star in the universe 10 “earths” and each “earth” an ocean of “primeval soup” mixed to the evolutionists’ recipe. Nevertheless, it did not make the evolution of even one “simple” protein probable.

  • The fundamental building molecules are not proteins but DNA.

The attempt to use DNA in the synthesis of proteins only makes the situation worse for evolution. DNA is even more unlikely to come into existence by chance than protein is. It would be like someone claiming that a table of logarithms came into existence by being generated by a computer that, in turn, came into existence by chance.

  • Smaller self-replicating chains could form and progress in small steps to produce longer and longer chains.

There are a number of difficulties with such a model. First of all, scientists have not found any evidence of such occurring in nature. Second, even if it could occur, the probabilities of ending up with the right sequence, after all the small steps, would still be immeasurably small by essentially the same reasoning given in the article. Third, what would be the role or purpose of such intermediate chains? Why and how would they survive to produce more complicated chains? Certainly, there is no evidence of the existence of intermediate chains being somehow related to intermediate species.

  • Natural selection is an established theory. The hypothesis of Darwin has been confirmed by experimental work.

There is not necessarily a disagreement with this — up to a point. But natural selection can only explain the survival of the fittest. It does not explain the arrival of the fittest. 

  • Natural selection is adequate to explain the variety of living things we see today.

Even evolutionists do not make this claim. They require spontaneous generation and mutations (at the very least) in addition to natural selection.

  • But this does not rule out mutation as a mechanism for improvement when combined with natural selection. For example, a chess player might be competing against many opponents whose starting position is on occasion changed — slightly, randomly. Then it might be supposed that those opponents with the better starting positions are more likely to win. Suppose the losers drop out and the winners play many further games (dropping out only if they lose all games from the previous starting position, the chance of a random change continuing). Then might it not be reasoned that after much time, the starting positions in use might improve?

The analogy regarding starting positions in a chess game is interesting. The reasoning applied, however, is fallacious on several grounds. Even if the starting positions are being changed slightly, but randomly, there is no guarantee that an improved starting position that results in a winner one time will result in an improved starting position the next game. Quite the contrary, a small modification of an excellent starting position could conceivably be a disastrous starting position.

Moreover, the chess players are presumably intelligent beings. They perform at varying skill levels. So it makes no sense to attribute their characteristics to that of a blind chance mechanism of mutations and natural selection.

The theory of probability applies only to chance phenomena and not to deterministic phenomena. For example, it would be nonsense to ask the question: “What is the probability I will paint my house green?” There is no answer. If I want to paint it green, I will. If I don’t, I won’t. Similarly, the theory of probability cannot be applied to deterministic games such as chess or checkers.

On the other hand, the theory of evolution is based on the assumption that living forms came into existence from nonliving matter by chance. It is amazingly improbable that even the simplest constituents of living things come into existence by chance. This is a valid application of probability.

  • Mutations are like errors in the genetic code. It is this random error-making in the genetic machinery that furnishes evolution with the stuff of creative change.

No one is saying that mutations could not account for some changes in the structure or appearance of organisms. But mutations cannot produce genuinely new forms of life. While minor variations in appearance or structure might be produced by mutations, there is no evidence whatsoever that mutations produce the kind of quantum leaps required by the theory of evolution.

  • The fossil record clearly shows evolution has taken place.

The fossil record provides considerable evidence that evolution did not occur. Consider the facts. Evolution would require a fossil record that shows the gradual changing of one species to another with numerous transitional forms. But instead the fossil record shows broad gaps between fossil species for which there are no intermediate forms.

Note this startling admission of an evolutionist:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid” (Macro-evolution: Pattern and Process, Steven M. Stanley, page 39).

  • Scientists have created life. They made a simple organism that could eat oil spills in the ocean and then die out for lack of food.

Actually, these organisms were not created from nonliving matter. They were developed from existing living organisms through genetics. These genetic engineers have no more claim to creating life than a dog breeder does.

  • You are presenting to your readers the fallacy that science is a finished product and that whatever is speculative in science is therefore wrong.

You have probably all heard someone at one time or another say something like, “Science tells us that…”  and then they make some claim or other.  But science doesn’t tell us anything because it is a mechanism, a method, a tool.  Science doesn’t provide conclusions; humans do.  Those conclusions can be arrived at logically, honestly and accurately  or  irrationally, dishonestly and carelessly—that depends on the scientist.  The Scientific Method involves five steps:

  1. Observation – collecting data
  2. Hypothesis – forming a preliminary possible explanation of the data;
  3. Testing – test the hypothesis by collecting more data, using a control
  4. Results – interpreting the results of the test and deciding if the hypothesis should be rejected.  The hypothesis is rejected if the results contradict it, showing that it is wrong.
  5. Conclusion – stating a conclusion that can be evaluated independently by others using this same method.

After years of scrutiny, certain observed phenomena  (such as gravity)  become established as law.  The problem occurs when scientists usurp the name of science to make authoritative statements of philosophy.  Unfortunately, scientists are not always very clear as to when they are engaging in science, and when they are engaging in philosophy.  Philosophy  can be both reasonable and rational, but it is not scientific, by definition,  because it is not an observable phenomenon  in the physical world.

Many scientists cheerfully admit that they are speculating. We have no complaint with scientific speculation as long as such is truthfully identified as speculation. Evolutionists however do not admit that the theory of evolution is speculative. Instead, they palm off speculation as fact. In the March 23, 1981, issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Rolf M. Sinclair, a physicist at the U.S. National Science Foundation, is quoted as follows:

“The fact of evolution is as incontrovertible as the fact that the earth is spherical rather than flat.”

The author and biochemist Isaac Asimov stated:

“Scientists have no choice but to consider evolution a fact” (“The Genesis War,” Science Digest, October, 1981, page 85).

“Having the fact of evolution before us … ” (ibid., page 85).

“Evolution is a fact … ” (ibid., page 87).

Honestly, does that sound like speculation to you?

  • Your acceptance of God’s existence is not based on rational thinking. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines faith or belief in God as a “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”

A dictionary is not an arbiter of truth. Actually, dictionaries give several definitions of faith. Not every dictionary definition of faith demands the exclusion of logic, reasoning or material evidence. True faith, the kind of faith spoken of in the Bible, is not a blind, superstitious, illogical faith. It is a faith based on “evidence of things not seen” and is in harmony with logic, reason and the factual world.

  • Where did God come from? Since the creator of the universe would have to be more “complicated” than the universe itself, the probability of God coming into existence by chance would be less than the probability of the universe coming into existence by chance.

This is a popular argument. It has two fundamental flaws.

First of all, an Eternal Being does not need to come into existence, since he has always existed. It makes no sense to ask: “What is the probability that a Being, who always existed, came into existence?” The question is inherently contradictory.

Second, eternal existence is not a chance phenomenon. Someone or something either always existed or did not always exist. No probability is involved. For this reason we cannot apply probability to questions such as, “Does God exist?” or “Has the universe always existed?” 

  • Why could not God have chosen to use evolution to produce life forms we see in the world?

Where does a 500-pound gorilla sit? Wherever he wants. How did an Eternal God create life? Obviously, however he wanted! Would a superintelligent, superpowerful Divine Being use a chaotic, random, haphazard process such as evolution to create life?  Here is a quote the eminent scientist Sir Fred Hoyle:

“The thought occurred to me one day that the human chemical industry doesn’t chance on its products by throwing chemicals at random into a stewpot. To suggest to the research department [of a chemical corporation] that it should proceed in such a fashion would be thought ridiculous” (Engineering and Science, November, 1981, page 12).

This leading scientist, who would have liked to believe in evolution and who was seeking the origin of life in the blind forces of nature, finally had to conclude:

“A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question” (ibid., page 12).

What about you? Do you believe that “simple” life forms came into existence by blind chance in a cosmic chemical stewpot? Do you further believe that such simple living things gradually developed such marvelously intricate structures as hearts, lungs, eyes and brains through “random errors in the genetic code”?

The physical evidence from the factual world leads to only one conclusion — living things had to be planned, designed and created by a Supreme Being!

  • Could A Simple Protein Not Form By Chance?

Proteins are essential molecules for the existence of physical life. Protein molecules consist of chains of chemical compounds called amino acids. A relatively simple protein would consist of a chain of about 100 amino acids.

Suppose we have a “soup” full of amino acids. We want these acids to link up at random to form a protein consisting of 100 amino acids. How many different combinations are there?

There are on earth 20 different types of amino acids available to form proteins. If we wanted a chain of two such acids, there would be 20 possibilities for the first acid and 20 for the second — or 20 x 20 =400 possibilities. If we wanted a chain of three such acids, there would be20 x 20 x 20 = 8,000 possibilities.

For a protein consisting of a chain of 100 acids, therefore, we have 20 x 20 x. … x 20 = 20100 possibilities. But 20100 is approximately equal to 10130, that is, 1 followed by 130 zeros. So we have 10130 possibilities, but only one combination is the right one for a given protein.

Is it reasonable to believe that such a protein could have formed by chance during the history of the universe? The odds against such an event are beyond astronomical.

Source: The Plain Truth, 1983

Guy Fawkes Day: No Biblical Basis As A Religious Holiday!

GuyFawkesBonfireIn Great Britain, Guy Fawkes Day is celebrated every November 5.

This holiday has its origins in a religious conflict involving the banishment of Roman Catholic priests from England. In protest, several laymen plotted to blow up the Houses of Parliament when King James I was to open the new session. Nearly 40 barrels of gunpowder were prepared and secreted in a cellar underneath the Houses of Parliament. Authorities discovered the plot and the conspirators were arrested and executed.

In the early 1700s, after firmly choosing Protestantism over Catholicism, the British nation began to celebrate the anniversary of the thwarting of the Gunpowder Plot. Guy Fawkes — an apparent ringleader — had been chosen to set off the ill-fated explosion, hence the holiday became known as Guy Fawkes’ Day, and was celebrated by burning Fawkes in effigy. Later, fireworks were added to the festivities.

Children made human figures out of straw and sticks, and begged coins from passersby by asking, “Penny for the Guy?” They chanted rhymes like these:

“Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, ’twas his intent
To blow up King and Parliament.”

A few old Fawkes’ Night rhymes were aimed at the far-off leader of the Catholic Church:

“A penny loaf to feed the Pope.
A farthing cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down.
A faggot of sticks to burn him.”

Guy Fawkes Day in England is reminiscent of Halloween celebrations. Marguerite Ickis tells us, “Guy Fawkes Day has many customs in common with a Halloween celebration in the United States” (Book of Festivals and Holidays World Over, page 120).

Young people in England observe this holiday somewhat like Americans observe Halloween. The Book of Days tells us:

“English juveniles still regard the 5th of November as one of the most joyous days of the year. The universal mode of observance through all parts of England is the dressing up of a scarecrow figure, in such cast-habiliments as can be procured (the headpiece, generally a paper cap painted and knotted with paper strips in imitation of ribbons), parading it in a chair through the streets and at nightfall burning it with great solemnity in a huge bonfire…. The procession visits the different houses in the neighborhood…. One invariable custom is always maintained — that of soliciting money from the passersby, in the formula, ‘Pray remember Guy!’ ‘Please to remember Guy!’ or ‘Please to remember the bonfire!’ [The common expression now is “Penny for the guy”]” (pages 549-550).

In times past, Guy Fawkes Day was celebrated by many of the adult generation. “In the old days the festival was celebrated heartily with bonfires and parades of masqueraders, who carried aloft ‘popes’ or ‘guys’ of straw” (Dorothy Gladys Spicer, The Book of Festivals, page 14).

But as Marguerite Ickis explains: “Today Guy Fawkes Day is mainly a holiday for children, who observe it by dressing up in funny costumes, having parades, lighting firecrackers and making straw dummies of Guy Fawkes” (Book of Festivals and Holidays World Over, page 120).

Like Halloween, Guy Fawkes Day has its religious overtones. The Book of Days informs us: “Till 1859, a special service for the 5th of November formed part of the ritual of the English Book of Common Prayer; but by special ordinance of the Queen in Council, this service… has been abolished” (page 549).

Guy Fawkes Day, like Halloween and many other days observed the world over, has no biblical basis as a religious holiday.

Source: The Good News, October/November 1985

Gossip: The Tongue Of A Fool

Filed under: Gossip — melchia @ 8:09 pm
architel.com/blog

architel.com/blog

“…He that utters a slander is a fool – Prov. 10:18

——————–

“A hypocrite with his mouth destroys his neighbour…” – Prov. 11:9

——————–

“A talebearer reveals secrets; but he that is of a faithful spirit conceals the matter” – Prov. 11:3

——————–

“An ungodly man digs up evil: and in his lips there is a burning fire. A froward man sows strife: and a whisperer separates chief friends” – Prov. 16:27-28

——————–

“He that covers a transgression seeks love, but he that repeats a matter separates very [true] friends”- Prov. 17:9

——————–

“The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly” – Prov. 18:8, 26:22

——————–

“He that goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets; therefore meddle not with him that flatters with his lips”- Prov. 20:19

——————–

Debate your cause with your neighbour himself; and discover not a secret to another: lest he that hears it puts you to shame, and your infamy turn not away”- Prov. 25:9-10

——————–

“Where no wood is, there the fire goes out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceases”- Prov. 26:20

——————–

“You shall not go up and down as a talebearer among your people…I am the Lord”- Lev. 19:16

——————–

“…It [the tongue] is an unuly evil, full of deadly poison” – Jam. 3:8

Eye Opening Proof: Evolution Did Not Occur!

“That…eye…the human eye,”complained one science writer while attempting to justify the theory of evolution. How can anything so intricate and complex as the human eye, he asked, have evolved? He posed the question, but he could give no adequate answer. The best he could do for his readers was to make a hazy suggestion as to how he thought evolution “could have”occurred.

Charles Darwin himself struggled with the eye problem. He wrote in a private letter of a time when “the thought of the eye made me cold all over”(Letter to Asa Gray, April 3, 1860).

In his work, “The Origin Of Species,”Darwin conceded: “To suppose the eye with all its imitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Absurd indeed! There is no way to account for the existence of such an engineering marvel as the human eye by a slow process of chance natural selections. All of the vital parts of the eye have to be present and functioning if sight is to be possible. Nowhere in nature can there be found developing non-working eyes. Even the so called primitive eyes of lower life forms are complete and able to perform exactly as designed. Their intricacy varies from that of their human counterparts only by degree.

Consider for a moment, how marvelously made are the masterpieces through which you are now reading this. The part of the eye that is visible is only a portion of a gel-filled globe set in a protective socket of the skull. Enclosing the gel are three major layers of tissue. The tough fibrous outer layer is the sclera. What is seen in front as the white of the eye is part of this layer. Also part of the sclera is transparent covering (cornea) over the opening or pupil of the eye.

Just inside the sclera is a layer of blood-vessel rich tissue. And within that is the layer known as the retina, upon which images are formed much as they are formed on film in a camera.

Light enters by way of the pupil and passes through an adjustable lens that focuses the light rays onto the retina. The human retina contains some1.3 million light-sensitive cells – the rods and cones, so named because of their shapes. Different ones of these cells react to different luminous intensities and colours. These cells pick up the light stimulus and translate it by a photo-chemical process into nerve impulses that travel to the brain. The impulses become vivid, colourful, moving, three dimensional mental images capable even of being stored for future recollections.

The eye is an incredibly intricate mechanism. Just how complex can be realized by checking a reference work such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, where in the 15th edition, a discussion of the eye and sight fills more than 34 pages. The highly diversified and specialized parts of the eye – the muscles, ligaments, tissues, fluids, canals, nerves, pigments, blood vessels – all work together to produce sight. This complex organ could not have developed gradually to fill a creative need.

If the entire eye were present except for the lens, the eye would not work. If it were all there but the retina, there would be no sight. All the vital parts have to be in place or the eye is useless. This is a real problem for evolutionists, since the theory of natural selection holds that creatures evolve only what is of immediate benefit.

In other words, evolutionists themselves must admit that animal life forms cannot blindly look two generations, three generations or more into the future, contemplate needs, establish goals and work towards them. Evolution cannot plan ahead. It lacks the foresight.

The arrangement of creatures in the so-called evolutionary tree simply does not show a long, slow development of the eye, with splendidly working mechanisms, interspersed with transitional-phase, non-functioning, defective eyes. Each creature has been given eyes which perfectly satisfy its needs.

An oyster doesn’t have to be able to watch TV in order to survive, but it does need to be able to detect passing shadows. So it has been given small, sensitive spots which can detect changes in the intensity of light. They may be called “simple,”but the oyster’s sensitive spots are complete. They work and fulfill the oyster’s needs as is proved by the fact that oysters are a thriving species.

Nor can all eyes in smaller lifeforms be called “simple.” According to the evolutionary concept, one would not expect a small tropical minnow like anableps, for example, to have the uniquely complicated eyes it has. it actually has what amounts to four eyes, because each of its two apparant eyes has two separate corneas and two separate retines. As the anableps swims along the surface of the water, one section of each eye looks up with a special flattened lens suitable for viewing in the air, while the other section peers down into the water with an oval lens such as other fish have. A true engineering marvel.

It is impossible to account for the eyes of any creature great or small by a process of Darwinian evolution. It is equally impossible to explain them by blind, random mutations, quantum leaps or any other humanly devised theory. It took the great creator God to skillfully design and make the eye.

As the scripture says: “…he that formed the eye, shall he not see?…he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man (like the evolutionary theory), that they are vanity”(Ps. 94:9-11).

The marvelous human eye is God’s workmanship. The evidence is obvious and there for all to look at. But, as has often been said, there is none so blind as he who will not see.

Source: The Plain Truth, August 1983

The Three Resurrections Explained!

Resurrection - From Mortal To Immortal

The 1st Resurrection - From Mortal To Immortal

Throughout history, man has had a fascination with death and the afterlife. Will you and your loved ones live again? Do you have an immortal soul, as so many professing “Christians” believe?

The biblical teachings on life and death have been primary targets of Satan the devil from the beginning. The first recorded lie was that man would not die, (Gen. 3:4) and man has believed the “immortal soul” lie ever since.

Consider the domino effect of this one lie. If man has an immortal soul, he cannot die; if he cannot die, he cannot be resurrected! Furthermore, the Apostle Paul wrote that if we deny the resurrection of the dead, we deny the resurrection of our Savior Jesus Christ, leaving us totally without hope (I Cor. 15:13-14, 19).

The Immortal Soul Lie

When Satan told Eve that she “would not surely die,” she was deceived. Both Eve and Adam subsequently chose to reject the revelation that God had given them. Mankind refuses to accept God’s revelation about death and resurrection to this day, relying instead on his own human reasoning. Modern “Christianity” commonly accepts the immortal soul lie without a shred of evidence and with plenty of proof to the contrary!

Gen. 2:7 says, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” This word soul in no way implies immortal life. The word is nephesh in Hebrew and is translated “a breathing animal.” It is used throughout the Old Testament to describe creatures such as cattle, fowl, whales — and man. Ecclesiastes 3:19 shows that man dies just as the animals do.

The soul is physical, composed of matter and it can die. We see this point emphasized throughout the Bible. “Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away” (James 4:14). Our temporary physical existences are also compared to withering grass that is blown away by a gust of wind (I Pet. 1:24; Ps. 103:13-16).

The Bible shows that all who die — which is everyone –, will eventually be resurrected. The question is not if a person will be resurrected, but when.  “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order” (I Cor. 15:22-23).

Jesus Christ was the first to be resurrected. He is the “firstborn among many brethren,” (Rom. 8:29) and has made the resurrection of everyone who ever lived possible. A careful study of God’s word reveals that there are three resurrections yet to come.

What follows is a brief overview of the biblical teachings concerning the resurrections.

The First Resurrection

The first resurrection is reserved specially for a) the dead in Christ and b) those that are Christ’s at His coming. “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (I Thess. 4:16-17). These are those that belong to Jesus Christ; those who have repented and received the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9). These people will live forever and reign with Christ throughout the Millennium, as shown in Revelation 20:5-6.

The Second Resurrection

Revelation 20:5 shows when the next resurrection will take place: “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” As we can see, at the end of the 1000 years, two things will happen. Firstly, Satan, who will have been imprisoned throughout the Millennium, (v.3) will be released from his prison and, secondly, everyone else who has ever died will be resurrected. Most of humanity will be brought back to life in this resurrection, as described in Ezekiel 37:1-14. They will then finally have God’s truth revealed to them and be given their chance to become a part of God’s Kingdom. This period of time is called the Great White Throne Judgment.

Only one passage reveals the duration of the Great White Throne Judgment: Isaiah 65:17-25. In verse 20, we read, “There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.” From this point on, no more infants will be born. There will then be two classes of people: “the child” and “the sinner.”

“The child,” in this instance, refers to a person who is righteous. We are to enter the Kingdom of God as a little child (Luke 18:17). Why, then, does the prophet Isaiah say that the child will die?

Because it is given to all men to die once. “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb 9:27). The temporal, physical existence of the righteous will end. Those that fall into the category of “the child” will become the spirit-born sons of God, just as those that were Christ’s at His coming did in the First Resurrection. They also will be “changed in the twinkling of an eye” (I Cor. 15:51-52).

The Third Resurrection

The Third Resurrection is a resurrection to the second death. The prophet Daniel spoke of this resurrection: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Jesus Christ calls it the resurrection of “condemnation” (John 5:29).

Everyone will be given the opportunity to repent and become a part of God’s family, but not everyone will accept it. Those that are not found in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire, ending their existence forever (Rev. 14:10). Malachi 4:3 adds that in the end the ashes of the wicked will be under the feet of the righteous. The incorrigibly wicked will have died the second death, from which there will never be a resurrection (Rev. 20:14-15). This is a merciful act on the part of their Creator. These people would be miserable eternally if they had immortal life, so God mercifully end their lives, leaving only the “smoke of their torment” to ascend forever (Rev.14:11).

Incredible Human Potential

When the resurrections have finally taken place, those left alive will have an immortal soul — one composed of God’s Holy Spirit rather than dust. The resurrections are, in fact, the fulfillment of our incredible human potential. In his book, The Incredible Human Potential, Mr. Armstrong wrote about that awesome future:

“When born of God, we shall be Spirit, no longer human flesh and blood. We shall be given power! As Daniel revealed, the saints then shall take the kingdoms of earth’s nations and rule them for the first thousand years — establishing world peace and Divine government under Christ.

“And after that? The passage in Hebrews 2 shows that then, again under Christ, we shall be given power to rule over the entire vast universe — literally all things. For that is the power that has been given to Christ and will be ours as joint inheritors with Him!

“Yes, there is a life after death for those obedient to God — a Spirit life of incredible potential beyond our wildest dreams! Can we humans grasp the awesome portent of these astounding truths? Attaining immortal life should be our all-encompassing goal. For that is the gift and desire of our merciful Father and His Son Jesus Christ.”

What a glorious vision of the future!

Jesus Christ: A Biblical Vision Of True Masculinity

What is a true man? A cowboy? A bodybuilder? Real masculinity is…  Source: ArtToday, Inc.

What is a true man? A cowboy? A bodybuilder? Real masculinity is… Source: ArtToday, Inc.

WHAT kind of God was it that died for you? Was He a ninety-seven-pound weakling? Is He the Little Lord Jesus away in the manger? Was He short and squat — a bare five feet, three?

What about the paintings of Christ — the sickly effeminate ones — are they representative of the real Jesus Christ? How about Mary’s little lamb? Does this nursery rhyme have any connection with Jesus Christ?

A Wrong Concept Image

For many of us a wrong concept of Christ began way back in kindergarten. The false concept, the wrong picture is partially the result of an “innocent” nursery rhyme, “Mary had a little lamb, his fleece was white as snow and everywhere that Mary went, that lamb was sure to go …” Why Mary’s little lamb — why not Betty’s or Johnny’s little lamb?

That “harmless” nursery rhyme was inspired by “the god of this world” (II Cor. 4:4). It subconsciously conditioned our young, pliable minds to think in terms of a little weak lamb (Christ).

In the rhyme the lamb caricature depends on, looks to, leans on its protector “Mary.” It’s just another way of presenting an image picture of the Madonna and child. Mary’s motherly, domineering image penetrates our subconscious mind without our realizing. A sissified mama’s boy, weak Christ is the result!

As children, many of us were taught to kneel and pray a memorized prayer to a make-believe, imaginative, nursery-rhyme god! “Now I lay me down to sleep … my soul to keep …” The deception, the perversion does not stop in kindergarten. As adults, we are given a ninety-seven-pound weakling god. One that is so sickly and effeminate as to be stripped of all power! Jesus Christ may be a Negro, Oriental, Latin, or if you are an Anglo-Saxon, He’s probably a blond, blue-eyed, white-skinned Christ. Whatever the nationality, He is always the tired, washed-out one — a disgrace to humanity!

What Is Jesus Christ Really Like?

What are the facts? Surely this is not the picture of the true God we are to worship! What is Jesus Christ really like? What kind of a man was this God when He walked this earth as flesh almost two thousand years ago?

We don’t have to guess about the answers — they are sure, they are plain! They are found in the Bible! The true Jesus Christ is all powerful, He lives! He is the Almighty, ever-powerful, omnipotent God who speaks with a voice so strong that mountains literally quake in His presence. His voice is as a sound of many waters, thunderous waters of a GIANT, ROARING WATERFALL (Rev. 1:15).

God speaks to us today in great power! His voice is in the lightning, the thunder and tornadoes (Ps. 29:1-11). He shakes this earth in giant earthquakes, just as a child would shake a rag doll. That God — the real Jesus Christ, came to this earth A man’s man!! The Jesus Christ of your Bible was no weakling, no mama’s boy.

Jesus Christ was born of His Father, the one who said, “Let us make man in our image …” (Gen. 1:26). A vibrant, Holy, merciful, compassionate, kind and loving Father gave His son the power of the universe, the power to tell the future before it happens (Isa. 41:22). The Father is an all-powerful, pulsating, omnipotent force of energy that is the absolute of masculinity; He bequeathed those same masculine characteristics to His Son.

Jesus Christ was perfect, the very image of His Father in Heaven. He grew up to be as strong as the land He created. As a child, He traveled by foot all the way from Egypt to Palestine, camping out under the stars — stars that He created in the beginning with His Father (John 1:1-3).

At night, on the trip from Egypt to Palestine, the boy, Jesus, scurried around hunting firewood to cook the evening meal. When Dad said, “Son, it is time for bed” — Jesus Christ rolled up in a sheepskin beside the campfire and slept the sleep of peace, the sleep of a youthful, energetic boy who was to grow to be the greatest man ever to walk this earth!

The Carpenter’s Son

The carpenter in Christ’s time was no ordinary person. There were no power saws, no precut timber. All work was accomplished by muscle and brawn, by men who were REAL MEN! Joseph taught his son the trade of carpentry. In this trade, Jesus Christ developed a physique that would have made most athletes a little jealous. He grew tall, evenly muscled, tanned by the sun and wind!

Joseph and his son arose very early in the morning while it was still dark. They prayed and studied. Then at the crack of dawn, they were off to the forest to fell the trees needed for building. Jesus Christ swung an axe day after day. His muscles rippled under His tunic as He labored in the great out-of-doors.

The timber, once felled, was worked by an adz until it became a beam. At evening, Christ hoisted the work of His hands to His shoulders and trudged the long walk home, often arriving after dark. Foundations were dug in the rocky hillside of Palestine. They picked and shoveled out the earth, removing great boulders from their obstructive position.

There were no trucks carrying premixed concrete to roll up and pour the foundation. That was the work of a stonemason, the carpenter Joseph and his son. Boards too had to be sawed from the rough beams. From forest to foundation, from rock quarry to roof, the house became a reality.

The Great Storm

One evening, after a long, hard, tiresome day, Jesus turned to Peter and the other disciples and said, “Let’s go over to the other side of the sea where we can find a little peace and quiet away from the crowd.” The idea was as a command. It appealed to the rugged adventurous men at his side.

Immediately they boarded a good-sized boat anchored nearby intending to leave the crowd behind. The pressing crowd had other ideas. They had no intentions of losing sight of this outstanding, dynamic leader, who told them of the good news of a future Kingdom under God. Quite a number rushed to board other small boats intending to follow Him to the other side.

Casting off, they went only a short distance before the sky began to darken. Thunder and lightning flashed and roared through the sky. The crowds became fearful. The small boats turned back. The wind lifted. Peter, James, John and the other men, glanced nervously overhead at the ominous, threatening sky as they hurriedly battened down the boat.
The storm continued to build. Great waves churned, threatening to capsize them. The storm had all the power of a typhoon. Waves soon spilled over, filling the boat with water until it was ready to sink.

Frightened half out of their wits, the experienced fishermen, Peter, James and John labored furiously with the other disciples to keep the boat afloat. It was hopeless! They were sinking! Where was Jesus Christ? James answered, “He’s asleep, He found a few boat cushions and curled up to sleep in the back of the boat.”

Disturbed, angered, and frightened, Peter rushed back followed by the other disciples to find Christ. Sure enough, there He lay, protected from the storm, sound asleep! Peter shouted to be heard above the thunderous roar of the wind and waves. “Master, don’t you care if we all drown, this ship is about to sink and you aren’t even concerned enough to help save the boat.”

Jesus Christ opened His eyes, looked up at the wet, distraught, disheveled fishermen. What a sight they were. He couldn’t help but smile. Shedding the oilskin covering, He stood up and commanded the sea, “Be quiet you wind, waves be still.”

Instantly the sea was transformed from a raging, turbulent, fierce storm into a mill pond. The moon and the stars broke through the fast dissipating dark clouds and He said, “Why are you so fearful? Why is it that you have no confidence, no faith in me?” (Mark 4:35-40 — Phillips, RSV, Moffatt).

A Masculine Man

The Jesus Christ of your Bible enjoyed being around good friends like Peter, James and John. He and His disciples were hard-driving, dedicated men with a purpose, a goal in life. There were both serious moments and times of laughter around the campfire at night. A real man’s fellowship existed between these robust men of great strength.

Jesus Christ was a man of character, of stamina, of great determination. He fasted as few men are capable of fasting. Forty days and forty nights without food or water. That’s more than a full month! There was a reason. Deep within burned a singleness of purpose — your salvation and mine BY DEATH!!

A Thundering, Dynamic Personality

Near Passover time, Jesus walked over to Jerusalem. He passed by the Temple. What He saw stopped Him short in His tracks. He couldn’t believe His eyes! There in His Father’s Temple were merchants selling cattle, sheep and doves for sacrifices. The place was in an uproar, confusion, shouting men dickering for a better price in the very Temple of God!
Angered, He carefully fashioned a scourge of small cords. The next day He strode into the temple brushing aside those who were milling around. Grasping the first table He came to, He flipped it into the air. Money flew everywhere! The money changers were stunned.

Taking the scourge, He whipped it through the air, it snapped with a crack of a pistol. Animals scattered! Men fell over one another as they retreated to the nearest exit. A thundering voice called out after them, “Get these things out of here! You who make my Father’s House a house of merchandise.” Every last one meekly obeyed!

Imagine the headlines in the Jerusalem news the next day — that is if there had been a newspaper. Bold-faced headlines would have read, “Man from Nazareth turns temple upside down! — throws out money changers — drives out beasts — men shrink in fear!!”

There were no streetcars, no trains, no horses or carriages in 30 A.D. Jesus Christ walked from village to village. The highways were dirt and gravel. They were treacherous. Thieves abounded. Only a real man dared travel the dusty roads between Jerusalem and Jericho.

Remember the man who fell among thieves on the road to Jericho? They stripped him of his clothing, beat him senseless and left him for dead (Luke 10:30).

What Did it Take to Die?

Jesus Christ died on a stake for you! What did it take to die? What kind of day was it that Christ spent — His last day before His crucifixion? It began Tuesday morning, April 24, 31 A.D., very early in the morning. It ended in the most brutal murder ever suffered by a human being — agonizing hours of suffering climaxed by a slow, torturous death on a bloodied stake!
Source: The Good News, March 1968

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.