Babu G. Ranganathan's Articles on Religion and Science

Traditional Doctrine of Hell Evolved From Greek Roots

2010-04-03T16:30:00.019-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Although I am a conservative Christian (Reformed Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches or supports the traditional view of hell with its doctrine of eternal torment or suffering.

The Bible does teach eternal punishment, but that eternal punishment ultimately is not eternal suffering.

Although the wicked in hell, for a period, will suffer consciously for their individual sins, the ultimate penalty for sin itself will be the eternal death (literal death) of soul and body and the eternal loss to immortality. That is what the Bible means by their eternal punishment. It is not the "punishing" that is eternal but, rather, the "punishment."

God's righteous wrath is not an end in itself but a means to an end - that end being the eternal (literal) destruction of the wicked. Neither will God allow sin to exist for eternity by keeping sinners alive for eternity in hell. Neither is eternal torment necessary for God to satisfy His eternal justice.

But, what about those passages in the Bible which say that the wicked will go into "eternal fire" and that in hell there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth forever and ever," and other similar passages that seem to teach eternal torment? We shall examine, in this article, those and other passages from the Bible in the light of the context of Scripture and by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

Few in society realize just how much ancient Greek philosophy influenced early Christian thought on hell.

The ancient Greeks believed and taught that the human soul is immortal and indestructible. When early Christianity adopted this belief then it became only logical to believe that those who go to hell must suffer eternal torment.

More than anyone else, the early Church bishop Augustine influenced early Christianity's adoption of this ancient Greek belief about the nature of the soul. Augustine was a great admirer and follower of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato even after converting to Christianity. It was Plato who systematically formulated ancient Greek belief and thought concerning the nature of the human soul.

The Bible, however, teaches that man by nature is completely mortal and that immortality is a gift of God to be realized only on Resurrection Day for those who have put their faith and trust in God's Son Jesus Christ for salvation because Christ's death on the Cross fully paid for our sins and His resurrection from the grave is the guarantee of future immortality for all who believe in Him.

Interestingly, even Adam and Eve were not created as immortal from the beginning. That is why there was placed the Tree of Life in the midst of the Garden of Eden.

If pain is necessary for punishment then why do some societies have the death penalty? When a murderer is put to death he no longer feels pain. If he did then he wouldn't be dead. One thing for sure is that a murderer put to death by society no longer feels any pain from society. Does that then mean that society has not punished him since he no longer feels any more pain from society?

In Genesis 2:17 God told Adam not to eat the fruit of a certain tree (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) and God also told Adam that if he did eat of it he would die on that very day. Specifically, God said to Adam, "For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." But the Biblical record shows that Adam did not physically die on the very day he disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit. Because Adam did not physically die on the very day that he disobeyed God most Christians believe that God was referring to spiritual death and not physical death.

However, in the original Hebrew, in which the Old Testament was written, the grammatical tense of the word "die" in Genesis 2:17 is in the imperfect mood. The imperfect mood denotes a process. Thus, what God was actually saying to Adam is that he would start dying on the day he ate the forbidden fruit. The literal translation from the Hebrew of what God said to Adam is: "Dying you will die." God was not, therefore, referring to spiritual death but to physical death. The fact that God later prevented Adam and Eve from having access to the tree of life (Genesis 3:22-24) so that they would not live eternally in sin proves that God was referring to physical death and not spiritual death.

There are good Scriptural reasons to believe that the soul also is physical but distinct from the rest of the body, but that is another subject. Whether physical or not physical, man's soul, along with the rest of man, was created completely mortal and that is the primary point being addressed here.

The penalty for sin, then, is the death of both soul and body so that man will not live forever in sin. Not only is God not cruel in His eternal justice, but a holy God will not allow His moral creatures to exist eternally in sin. God will not immortalize sin and evil by making the wicked in hell immortal! All of this contradicts the traditional doctrine and teaching, taught in most churches, about the wicked having an immortal soul and body in hell.

What about "eternal fire", "unquenchable fire", "weeping and gnashing of teeth forever and ever", the account by Jesus about the Rich Man and Lazarus, and other similar passages in the Bible that seem to teach eternal torment? The key, in many cases, is in understanding the context in which these and other similar phrases are used in various parts of Scripture.

For example, figures of speech such as "unquenchable fire" are used in the Bible to mean that the process of destruction is unstoppable or irreversible. We see an example of this in the Old Testament book of Ezekiel 20:47-48 where God says that when His judgment comes on the land even every green tree will burn and that the fire "will not be quenched". Obviously, those trees are not still burning. It is important to understand just why God uses such terms in Scripture as "unquenchable fire".

In the Bible, there were some judgments of God in which His wrath was quenched or stopped such as in the case when Moses interceded and pleaded before God for the rebellious Israelites in the desert. When Moses did this God stopped or quenched His wrath against the rebellious Israelites. Thus, when God says, in Scripture, that the wicked in the end will be destroyed with unquenchable fire what He simply means is that nothing can intervene to prevent Him from carrying out His wrath fully through to its completion. Over and over in the Scriptures God is described in judgment as being a consuming fire. God's righteous wrath in judgment is not an end in itself but a means to an end.

Unlike the burning bush in Exodus that Moses observed was not consumed by the fire but was preserved by God, the Scriptures teach that God, in the end, will not preserve the wicked in the fire of hell but instead will completely consume and destroy them!

Contrary to popular belief and interpretation, the phrase in Scripture "where their worm dieth not" is not a reference to the undying human soul or conscience. We have already seen statements in Scripture that God will destroy, not preserve or keep alive, the bodies and souls of the wicked in the Day of Judgment. The worm and fire were figures that people in Jesus' time could readily identify and understand because in that time the dead bodies of those who suffered dishonor in society were all commonly thrown into a certain valley where fire and worms devoured these bodies. Jesus simply seeks to convey, in figurative language, that in hell (gehenna) neither the fire nor the worm will cease until the wicked are totally consumed or destroyed!

The word "forever" is another example. In Scripture the word "forever" does not always mean endless or eternal duration. For example, in Exodus 21:6 (KJV Version) we read that certain people were to be servants "forever". Obviously this cannot mean eternity. The word "forever" or "everlasting", in the original Hebrew and Greek languages of Scripture, simply means the entire length or duration of something. If that something is immortal then the word "forever" must mean eternity. But, if that something is mortal or temporary in nature then, obviously, the word "forever" cannot mean eternity.

When the Bible talks about eternal judgment, or eternal damnation, or eternal destruction, it is in reference to the result and not the process! It is not the punishing that is eternal but rather the punishment! It is not the destroying that is eternal but rather the destruction! It is not the dying that is eternal but rather the death. Just as eternal redemption in the Bible does not mean that the process of redeeming is eternal but rather its result (no one would be saved if the process of redeeming were eternal) so too the eternal judgment of the wicked refers to the result of their judgment being eternal and not the process.

The context of Holy Scripture teaches that the eternal punishment of the wicked is ultimately their eternal annihilation and not eternal torment or suffering as the traditional doctrine of hell teaches. As one preacher has put it: "Eternal punishment is the eternal loss of life not an eternal life of loss".

Eternal life in Scripture has the same meaning as immortality (i.e. Romans 2:7) which Christians will possess only in the future on Resurrection Day. Various Scripture passages teach immortality and eternal life to be a future possession for Christians. Why then did Jesus use the present tense when saying those who believe in Him have eternal life? The answer is that sometimes in the Bible the present tense is used to describe future events for the purpose of demonstrating their certainty. Scripture says God "calleth those things which be not as though they were" (Romans 4:17).

The Bible says Jesus Christ "hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10). The opposite of eternal life (or immortality) is eternal death (the eternal and literal death of soul and body) - not eternally living in torment and suffering! "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23). "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting (eternal) life" (John 3:16). The issue is not what we think eternal punishment ought to be. The issues are God's character, God's definition of ultimate justice, and God's eternal purposes.

Some have argued that because man was created in the image of God then all humans must possess an immortal soul. However, being created in the image of God doesn't necessarily mean that we must possess every attribute or even possible attribute that God possess. For example, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent - but we are not. The Bible is clear that immortality is an attribute that will be given only on Resurrection Day for those who have put their trust in Christ for salvation.

We must base our views of hell and the after life on what the Bible teaches, not on tradition or mere human philosophies and opinions. We must not impose our philosophy of what God ought to be upon Holy Scripture! Not many people realize the fact that in the New Testament there are different Greek words for the word "hell." But unfortunately the English Bible translates these different words for hell as one word, and this has been a cause of much confusion for those who wish to study the subject. The New Testament Greek words for hell are "Hades" and "Gehenna" and they both have different meanings. Hades means the unseen world of the dead and is only a temporary abode. It has nothing to do with punishment or reward. It is equivalent to the Hebrew word "Sheol" in the Old Testament in its meaning. Gehenna, on the other hand, is the abode of eternal punishment of the wicked.

Scripture teaches that both the wicked and righteous will be resurrected, but only the righteous (in and through Christ’s redemptive work) will obtain immortal bodies. The wicked will not inherit immortal bodies. They will be judged for their sins and in hell will suffer consciously for their individual sins before they are eternally destroyed in body and soul.

The Bible is clear that before the resurrection there is no consciousness of the souls who are said to be in Hades. There are some Scripture verses that seem to teach consciousness after death and before the resurrection, but, when studied in the context of Scripture, it will be seen that it is not so. Didn’t the repentant thief on the Cross be Jesus in Paradise that very day he died? What about when the Apostle Paul says in Scripture “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”? The answers to these, and other similar passages, are found in my larger article on the subject “The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell” at: http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-vs-traditional-view-of-hell.html.

The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16 has often been used by many Christians, especially preachers, as a depiction of the punishment that the wicked will suffer in hell. But this is not the case. In the first place when Jesus refers to the Rich Man being in torment in the flame of hell the Greek word for "hell" in the passage is not "Gehenna" (the place of final and eternal punishment), but rather it is the Greek word "Hades" (which in Scripture is the temporary abode of the dead). The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, like the other series of parables before it, was used of the Lord to illustrate or depict the end of the rule of the Pharisees and to depict the end of the Jewish Era and dispensation (as represented by the Rich Man being in torment) and it was also used of the Lord to depict or illustrate the elevation of Gentile Christendom (as represented by Lazarus). Actually, Lazarus represented the poor Jews of Jesus' time who were ignored by the self-righteous religious leaders of Israel and he also represented the gentiles who, although rejected by the Jewish leaders, would nevertheless be accepted into the bosom of Abraham through their new found faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. The religious leaders of Israel had lived only for themselves and ignored the spiritual needs of the spiritually sick and starving people around them.

The concept that Hades was a place divided into two compartments, one of suffering for the wicked and the other of bliss for the righteous, was a Jewish belief that had developed during the Intertestamental period, the period of time in between when the Old and New Testaments were written. Thus, this particular view of Hades was not canonical, that is it was not something that God Himself had revealed to the Jews through Scripture. There is no evidence in Scripture that Hades is a place where the wicked suffer while awaiting their final and permanent judgment in Gehenna. Such a concept of Hades developed as a result of ancient Greek influences on Jewish thinking about the nature of the soul. In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus was simply borrowing this popular Jewish folklore of Hades to use as an illustration to make a point to the Pharisees and religious leaders of His day, but He was not necessarily endorsing the folklore as being doctrinally valid or correct. There are various passages in the Old Testament, such as in Psalms, that tell us that there is no consciousness in Sheol (the Hebrew equivalent of Hades in the Old Testament).

Some argue that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not a parable because Jesus did not formally introduce it as a parable. But, Jesus did not always formally introduce His stories as parables, and there are various examples of that in the Gospels. Now, it is true that in His parables Jesus used things that actually existed to fill in for illustrations and figures, but in the particular case of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus the Lord used a popular existing Jewish myth about Hades for the purposes of constructing a story. Jesus simply used the Pharisees' own superstitious belief about Hades against them!

Why didn't Jesus rebuke the Pharisees' belief about Hades as being wrong? Jesus didn't go around always rebuking every wrong doctrine. For example, in Jesus' time it was a common Jewish belief (from the influence of Greek philosophy) that souls could commit individual sins before birth. That is why we read in John 9:1-3 that Jesus' disciples believed a certain man was born blind because he may have committed some great sin before his physical conception in the womb. Jesus didn't respond by telling His disciples that such a belief is doctrinally wrong but instead healed the blind man.

But, if the soul doesn't live on after the death of the body then how do we explain certain passages in the Bible that seem to teach that it does (i.e. What Jesus said on the Cross to the repentant thief). The answers are found in the author's much larger article "The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell".

A very important question arises that needs to be answered. If Jesus Christ was truly God how then could He completely die (in body and soul) since the Scriptures teach that God is immutable (unchanging). In answer to this question it is important to understand that everything about God, including His immutability and His very existence itself, is dependent upon His moral nature. God's immutability is conditional upon His moral nature. In fact, it would be theologically safe to say that the only thing about God that cannot change at all is His moral nature. Thus, it is only God's moral nature which is truly unconditionally immutable. In the context of Scripture, when God says "I am the Lord. I change not" (Malachi 3:6) it is in reference to His moral being and nature. Whatever God can do or cannot do is governed by His moral constitution or nature. For example, the Scripture says in Hebrews 6:18 that it is impossible for God to lie. Thus, when Scripture tells us elsewhere that with God all things are possible it must be understood from the context of comparing Scripture with Scripture that only all things are possible with God which are not contradictory to His moral nature. In other words, God is only as immutable as His moral nature allows Him to be. What does all this mean? It means that when God the Son (Jesus Christ) took the legal guilt and liability for our sins on the Cross then His divine moral nature required that He die since the penalty for sin is death. As He had to be true to His moral nature the Son gave up His life. It is precisely because of the immutability of His moral nature that Christ (Who is God) died when He took the guilt of our sins! Because He was God Christ's death had infinite value so that it was not necessary for Him to remain dead for eternity in order for His death to satisfy the full penalty for our sins.

If Jesus was truly God and He died completely (in both body and soul), how then could He have raised His own body from the grave as He said He would. There are two possible answers. One is that when His soul was given back its life Christ then entered His own body and raised it up from the grave. The other possible answer is in understanding what Jesus said about His authority over His own life and death. Jesus said that the Father had given to Him authority to lay down His life and to have His life raised from the dead (John 10:11-18). Shortly before Jesus died He exercised this authority by entrusting to His Father His spirit (not the Holy Spirit in this case but rather the spirit which is the principle of life, the breath of life). Remember His words on the Cross, "Father into Thy hands I commend My spirit" (Luke 23:46). By doing this He gave authority for death to overtake Him on account of our sins for which He died but He also had delegated His right and authority over His own life to the Father to raise Him up from the dead. In this way Jesus was very much responsible for both His own death and resurrection. What great love and condescension the Son of God subjected Himself to on our behalf! The reader is urged to examine in more detail the Biblical fact of Christ's Godhood and deity in the author's essay The Deity of Jesus Christ Explained and Defended.

By no means is the doctrine of conditional immortality new teaching. A minority of Christians, of various denominations, have held to this view of hell throughout the centuries. Even some very prominent Christians of the past have held to this view and there are a number (albeit a minority) of Christian theologians and scholars in the present who hold to this view. However, this view on hell, unfortunately, is known so little outside the Christian community and even inside the Christian community for that matter.

Many of the early Protestant Reformers, including Martin Luther, held to the view that man, by nature, is entirely mortal (including the soul), but the great Reformer John Calvin opposed this view and specifically wrote against it and insisted that all of the Reformers present a united front. An excellent Internet site containing information on all of this is "Champions of Conditional Immortality In History".

I highly recommend to all readers Dr. Edward Fudge's thoroughly biblical and scholarly work "The Fire That Consumes". The book is foreworded by the great evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce. This book should be required reading in every seminary and Bible school!

I encourage all to read my larger article "The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell" at my website www.religionscience.com for more comprehensive and in-depth coverage of this subject. Other questions and arguments, not raised here, are answered thoroughly in my larger article. I also hope that this information will shed new light in reading the New Testament, particularly the Gospels.

Second Coming of Christ Misunderstood (7th edition)

2010-04-03T16:20:00.043-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Not all prophecy in Scripture has been fulfilled yet but the second coming of Jesus Christ was totally fulfilled in the first century. The second coming of Christ had to do with the destruction of the Jewish Age and the establishment of Christ's Kingdom.

Jesus said that some of His disciples will not finish preaching through all the cities of Israel before He comes back (Matthew 10:23). Jesus said that some who were living during His time would not die before they see the Son of Man (Jesus Christ) coming in His Kingdom (Matthew 16:28). Jesus said that "this generation" will not pass away before all these things concerning His second coming are fulfilled (Matthew 24:34). He was talking to the people of that time and the generation of that time. He was saying that they (not us) would be witnesses to these things happening.

Some have argued that Jesus was talking about His glory that His disciples would behold when they reach the top of, what now is known as, the Mount of Transfiguration. But that had nothing to do with Jesus coming back to establish His Kingdom. Besides, as one commentator put it, it’s obvious that the people who were with Jesus would be alive for the little time it took for Him to go up the Mount and come back. It wouldn’t be a big deal for Jesus to say that some of those who were with Him would still be alive by the time He returns from His trip up the Mount.

Jesus wasn’t referring to His trip up the Mount and back when He said that some would not see death before He returns. He was referring to His second coming. That's when He would establish His Kingdom. All this means that the second coming occurred in that generation, not in a generation some thousands of years later.

Jesus said that when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies and is destroyed that would be the time of His second coming. This already happened between 63 A.D. and 70 A.D. Jesus said that the Gospel will be preached to every nation before He comes. The Apostle Paul says in Colossians 1:23 that the Gospel had already been preached to all nations (that is all nations of the then known world of the Roman Empire and beyond). One of the reasons that this Gospel was to be preached to all nations was in order to be a witness to them that God was through with Israel as a nation for its ultimate disobedience. The end of the world that Jesus was talking referred to the end of the age, not the end of the physical world. The word "world" in the passage comes from the Greek word "aion" meaning "age". The other Greek word for "world" is "cosmos" which refers to the physical world, but that's not the Greek word that's used in Scripture in reference to when Jesus returns. Jesus was referring to the end of the Jewish Age. That is why Jesus Himself said the "axe is laid at the root" (Luke 3:9) meaning the destruction of the nation was near.

God is still committed to His elect individual Jews who turn to Christ for salvation. But, He is through with Israel as a nation. The last time God prophesied that the Jews would return to the land was fulfilled after their return from the Babylonian captivity. During the Babylonian captivity the Jews were spread throughout all the nations of the Babylonian empire.

Furthermore, almost none of the Jews in modern Israel are descendants of the original Jews of Palestine thousands of years ago. Most of the Jews in Israel today are descendants of Europeans who had converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages (known as Khazar or Ashkenazi Jews).

What about the land? Weren’t the Jews promised an eternal inheritance to the land? It is vital to understand that God's promises concerning the land to the Jews in the Old Testament were conditional - only so long as they continued to obey Him were those promises concerning the land binding (read Deuteronomy 28). Their ultimate disobedience in their rejection of Christ would forfeit them any claim to the land.

We read in the Book of Joshua 21:43, 45: "And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which He swore to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass." Thus, there is no promise concerning the land that still awaits any fulfillment.

The Bible teaches that Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ inherit the same, not different promises, because in God’s eyes they are one spiritual seed (Ephesians 2:11-21 and 3:5-6).

The modern state of Israel today has the right to exist like any other nation, but it does not have the right to territorial conquest and control in the name of Zionism.

Most evangelical Christians, who are dispensationalists, are still seeking for an Israel that the New Testament says is the spiritual body of Christ made up of both Jew and Gentile believers in Jesus Christ and, again, who together (as one seed) inherit the same (not different) promises (Galatians 3:14-16).

The New Testament refers to the Christian church as the "Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16). There is good reason to believe that some of the Old Testament descriptions of God's future dealings with Israel are already being fulfilled spiritually in and through the Christian church which is made up of both Jew and Gentile believers in Christ inheriting the same (not different) promises.

Evangelist John L. Bray made this interesting point in one of his newsletters:

"The prophet Amos (in the Old Testament) had prophesied the future building of the Tabernacle of David to receive the saved of the heathen (Amos 9:12). In a special counsel of the apostles and other leaders, James (in the New Testament) declared that this prophecy was fulfilled as people were being converted through the preaching of the gospel and were becoming the spiritual house of God (Acts 15:13-19). This was called 'the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man (Hebrews 8:2)' " (Evangelist John L. Bray in Biblical Perspectives, December 1, 2009).

Thus, this proves that the Christian Church (both Jew and Gentile believers in Christ) are the recipients of God’s Old Testament promises. It is also proof that these promises are to be understood spiritually, not literally. It is not a literal future millennial tabernacle in view here, as the Apostle James clearly describes and explains in the passage.

God’s unconditional promises in the Old Testament were not made to national Israel but to all His elect (true Jew and Gentile believers in Christ), so this is not Replacement Theology, as some would say. God’s elect Jews are now united with His elect Gentiles in the Christian Church. Therefore, the promises made to His elect Jews are fulfilled now by the Christian Church. The Apostle Paul says in Romans 9:6, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” In the context of the passage, Paul was explaining who would inherit the Old Testament promises of God, and Paul said it would be the Church, the true Israel, the spiritual Israel.

As for national Israel, God had brought it to a permanent end for its ultimate disobedience in rejecting Christ. Jesus Himself prophesied judgment against the nation.

Many evangelical Christians believe (wrongly) that the "Great City" in the Book of Revelation, which God destroys in His wrath and which is referred to figuratively as “Babylon,” is Rome. They believe it is Rome because the city is described as being surrounded by seven hills.

However, Jerusalem, also, is surrounded by seven hills. The proof that Jerusalem is the city and not Rome is found in Revelation 11:8 where we read, "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the Great City, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified".

Was the Lord crucified in Rome or in Jerusalem? The wrath of God against Jerusalem for its apostate Judaism is what the early portions of the Book of Revelation are all about.

Jesus said that every eye will see Him at His return (that is everyone in Jerusalem at the time of its destruction) will know that Jesus was ultimately behind Jerusalem’s judgment and destruction for its ultimate rejection of Him as Messiah. The word "see" in the passage comes from the Greek word "eido" which can also mean "see" in the sense of understanding or comprehending like when you say to someone "Do you 'see' what I mean?"

In the Old Testament when Babylon was destroyed the Scripture says that the stars of heaven fell and the Sun and moon turned their color. This is known as apocalyptic language in Scripture. Whenever a very major event affecting Israel happens such language is used. The Book of Revelation uses similar language also. Revelation is to be interpreted symbolically, for the most part.

The Book of Revelation, like the rest of the New Testament, was originally written in Greek so sometimes we must go to the Greek language to have a more precise understanding of certain words.

In the very first verse of the very first chapter we read, "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God (the Father) gave unto Him, to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass; and He sent and signified it by His angel unto His servant John" (Revelation 1:1, KJV). The word "signified" in the passage comes from a Greek word meaning "signs" or "symbols". Thus, Revelation was meant by Christ to be interpreted symbolically, not literally. And notice, the passage says that these things "must shortly come to pass," (not thousands of years later).

The Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem from 63 AD to 70 AD (seven years) and totally destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish temple, as Jesus predicted. In the middle of those seven years ancient historians like Josephus record that Jews who believed in Christ had an opportunity to escape Jerusalem so that they would not be killed. These Jews escaped to Pella in Jordan.

But, didn't Jesus say about the temple that not one stone would be sitting on another when it's destroyed? How is it then that in the temple remains now there are still stones laying intact on each?

What Jesus said about the temple, that one stone will not rest upon another, must be understood as hyperbolic language (exaggeration, which is a useful tool and form of verbal expression in society). There are other examples in Scripture of hyperbolic language. The context of Scripture (of what all of Scripture teaches on any issue is always the key to proper and accurate interpretation).

The ancient Jewish historian Josephus was allowed by the Romans to describe and write about what was happening in Jerusalem at the time of its siege and destruction by the Roman army. Among the things Josephus describes are the miraculous signs that occurred in Jerusalem prior to its destruction. All of this was prophesied by Jesus.

The famines and earthquakes that Jesus said would precede His return also occurred during the first century and some of these are recorded in the New Testament (i.e. the Book of Acts). Jesus was simply saying that things would continue, just as they did before, that there would still be earthquakes, famines, even marriages, before He comes to establish His Kingdom. He didn't mean that these things would increase in frequency. He wasn't saying, for example, that marriages would increase in frequency before He returned!

What about the supposed covenant of peace with Israel made by the Anti-Christ that the Book of Daniel talks about? There's no covenant of peace with Israel. As the great and eminent Bible commentator of old John Gill says about Daniel 9:27: "... but this is to be interpreted of the Roman people, spoken of in the latter part of the preceding verse; who, in order to accomplish their design to destroy the city and temple of Jerusalem, made peace with many nations, entered into covenant and alliance with them, particularly the Medes, Parthians, and Armenians, for the space of one week, or seven years; as it appears they did at the beginning of this week". Daniel 9:27 says the covenant is with "many". It has nothing to do with a covenant with Israel.

Before 70 A.D. Jews who became Christians still had to follow the religious rituals and traditions of the Jewish ceremonial laws (i.e. Scripture teaches that Timothy, whose mother was Jewish and whose father was Gentile, was circumcised, and that by the leading of the Apostle Paul himself. Because Timothy's mother was Jewish, according to Jewish law that made Timothy Jewish). So, even though Timothy had become Christian, the Apostle Paul still made sure to get him circumcised. Christ's Kingdom had not been established yet. But, Gentiles, who during this time became Christian, were not under obligation to follow the religious customs, rituals, and traditions of the Jewish ceremonial laws (Acts 15:20).

In the Book of Hebrews the writer says that “we are receiving a Kingdom”. The Kingdom had not yet been officially established before the destruction and judgment on Jerusalem which Jesus prophesied and which occurred in 70 AD.

After 70 A.D. and the establishment of the Kingdom none of the ceremonial laws applied even to the Jews who had converted. All the Jewish ceremonial laws came to a permanent end.

Now, the Kingdom is growing and will one day fill the earth. The Scripture teaches that at some point in the future the final judgment will occur. All the wicked will be once and for all destroyed and the Son will give the Kingdom over to the Father and God will be all in all.

Before 70A.D. believers who died remained in a state of death ("sleep"). After 70 A.D. all believers who had died (over the centuries) had their souls resurrected and united with their new and eternal bodies prepared for them in heaven, as Scripture teaches. Christians who are alive now, when they die, will not remain in a state of death (or "sleep") but, instead, their souls will instantly be changed (become immortal) and their souls also will also be united with their new and eternal bodies which, Scripture says, is reserved for them in heaven (2 Corinthians 5:1). This is the on-going process of the Rapture.

The Apostle Paul says in in 2 Corinthians 5:1 that Christians have an eternal body (not a temporal body, but an eternal body) reserved for them in heaven (obviously the heavenly body is being kept for the time when their souls are resurrected).

In the context of Scripture Satan is now bound for a “thousand” years only to the degree that he cannot deceive all the gentile nations as he once did. Outside that limitation, Satan is as free to do his mischief as before.

The Millennium is symbolic and stands for the growth of Christ's Kingdom now. The number "thousand" is used symbolically just as when God says in Scripture that the cattle on a thousand hills are His. Of course, He owns more than the cattle on a thousand hills. It means all belongs to God.

In the Book of Daniel it says that Christ's Kingdom will be like a rock cut out of a mountain not by human hands (Daniel 2:34), and that this rock will grow into a mountain that fills the whole earth (Daniel 2:35). Christ's Kingdom doesn't fill the earth suddenly but gradually. Christ said that His Kingdom would be like the leaven in bread which spreads gradually throughout the whole bread (Matthew 13:33).

Christ's Kingdom has always been spiritual, not political. It wasn't political then, it's not political now, and it's not political in the future. Christ rules spiritually in the hearts of men. This rule will affect politics, but the rule itself is not political.

Almost all evangelical Christians today have absolutely no deep understanding of Christian doctrine, theology, Scripture, including prophecy!

They only want thrills and the frills. They're looking for a literal, glitzy, Kingdom like the disciples in Jesus' day thought He would establish.

And just as the Jews of Jesus' day wrongly understood His first coming, Christians of today wrongly understand what Scripture means by His second coming.

The Old Jerusalem of Judaism has been destroyed in 70 A.D.and the New Jerusalem (Christ's Church) now stands forever in its place. The modern state of Israel today has every right to exist but only like any other nation. Modern Israel has nothing to do with Bible prophecy or Scripture.

Revelation says that the New Jerusalem is the bride of Christ (Revelation 21:2). We know from other Scriptures that the Bride of Christ is the Church, Christ's Kingdom permanently replacing the old Jerusalem of Judaism under the law. In Revelation 22:15you will read that outside of the New Jerusalem are evil doers - that's the world. We are in the world but not of it. The New Jerusalem is not a physical city where outside of its doors are evil doers. That's not how to interpret the passage.

In fact, unlike the time of the Babylonian captivity hundreds of years prior, the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was so complete and thorough that even the genealogical record of the priests and their lineage was totally destroyed. God has totally put away Judaism and Israel as a nation once and for all. Today's Judaism and modern state of Israel are not recognized by heaven's God.

The true temple of God now is the body of believers in Jesus Christ, as Scripture says in various New Testament passages.

What, then, did Jesus mean when He said "And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8). The "earth" here is none other than Israel. "Heaven and Earth" sometimes in Scripture is in reference to God's spiritual relationship with Israel. The "new heavens and the new earth" are a picture of the new covenant, of the relationship of God with spiritual Israel (which is the Church made up of both Jew and Gentile believers in Christ).

"In 2 Peter 3:10 we read that when Jesus returns (Peter refers to it as the "Day of the Lord," which in other Scriptures is in reference to Christ's Second Coming), the heavens will pass away and the earth shall be dissolved. This is not referring to the physical earth or heavens. Even dispensationalist Christians believe that the physical heavens and earth will remain when Christ returns and establishes His millennial Kingdom. So, dispensationalists must have a big problem with this verse, but non-dispensationalist Christians have no problem. In the Old Testament, sometimes, when God would make pronouncements to Israel, He would refer to Israel as "Earth" (Isaiah 1:2). The word "earth" in the passage of 2 Peter 3:10 symbolizes national Israel and Judaism and the word "elements," in the passage, represent the ceremonial beliefs and tenets of Judaism. The Apostle Paul uses the same word "elements" in the Greek to refer to religious beliefs and principles (Colossians 2:20). The "heavens" represent God's relationship to Judaism. All this will be permanently done away with upon Christ's return accompanying the destruction of the Jewish Temple and Jerusalem (which occurred in 70 A.D.)

Here is what Gary DeMar says: "Jesus does not change subjects when He assures the disciples that "heaven and earth will pass away." Rather, He merely affirms His prior predictions, which are recorded in Matthew 24:2931. Verse 36 is a summary and confirmation statement of these verses.(6) Keep in mind that the central focus of the Olivet Discourse is the desolation of the "house" and "world" of apostate Israel (23:36). The old world of Judaism, represented by the earthly temple, is taken apart stone by stone (24:2). James Jordan writes, "each time God brought judgment on His people during the Old Covenant, there was a sense in which an old heavens and earth was replaced with a new one: New rulers were set up, a new symbolic world model was built (Tabernacle, Temple), and so forth."(7) The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant with new leaders, a new priesthood, new sacraments, a new sacrifice, a new tabernacle (John 1:14), and a new temple (John 2:19; 1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:21). In essence, a new heaven and earth.

C.H. Spurgeon puts it this way: ""Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacle, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under a new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354).

What about the argument of double fulfillment of these prophecies? The doctrine of double fulfillment would not apply to what Christ says about His return and end times because the time frame given by Christ and by Scripture preculudes the possibility of a double fulfillment in these matters. Jesus said it would be in His generation and be witnessed by those to whom He was speaking.

Also, a double fulfillment would mean that believing Jews would inherit separate promises from believing Gentiles and the Scripture teaches in Galatians and elsewhere that Abraham's spiritual seed is one and indivisible and that both Jewish and Gentile believers inherit all of the same promises together.

What about Zechariah 14 where we read that Christ would split the earth in two upon His return? Matthew Henry in his famous commentary says that Zechariah 14 is to be interpreted symbolically and spiritually. Read what he says in his commentary.

The context of all of Scripture has to be considered before we say something is symbolic or literal. As was mentioned earlier, there are many Old Testament prophecies that have been fulfilled spiritually in the New Testament through the Christian Church (i.e. compare Amos 9:12 with Acts 15:13-19)

Since Christ Himself says in Revelation 1:1 to interpret Revelation symbolically then that's how we must interpret the Zechariah passage also.

In the very first verse of the very first chapter we read, "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God (the Father) gave unto Him, to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass; and He sent and signified it by His angel unto His servant John" (Revelation 1:1, KJV). The word "signified" in the passage comes from the original Greek New Testament word meaning "signs" or "symbols". Thus, Revelation was meant by Christ to be interpreted symbolically, not literally.

The "last days" are over. The Apostles said that they were living in the last days. That was two thousand years ago! What they meant is that they were living in the last days of Judaism that was still recognized by God.

This view that Christ's second coming occurred in 70 AD during the destruction of Jerusalem is known as Preterist (or fulfilled) eschatology. There is much, much more to be said on this subject. Please check out the various articles, views, and interpretations concerning preterism at: http://www.preteristarchive.com

Also, the reader is encouraged to read "The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell" at: http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/01/bible-vs-traditional-view-of-hell.html. Some truths I share in that article will help the reader to understand better what has been said in this article.

The author is greatly indebted to the writings of the Rev. John L. Bray (Christian evangelist) for coming to know and understand this view of biblical prophecy. Evangelist Bray is now retired but his book "Matthew 24 Fulfilled" continues to be enjoyed by readers. The book may be ordered through American Vision.

Christ Was Begotten - Not Created!

2010-04-03T16:16:00.013-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

The Christian faith teaches that just as Adam and Eve were two persons but one flesh so, too, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three Persons but one God. The Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. When Jehovah says in Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." The word for "one" comes from a Hebrew word meaning composite oneness (not singular oneness), like when the Bible describes Adam and Eve were one. There is a Hebrew word for singular oneness, but that word is not used for Jehovah in Deuteronomy 6:4.

But was not Christ begotten of the Father? Yes, but this does not mean He was created or made. You and I were begotten of our parents, but our parents in no way created us just because we were begotten of them. Our life had already existed in our parents before they had begotten us. In fact, we really existed from the time of Adam and Eve even though we were begotten many centuries later. How is that so? Well, did not God finish His work of creation on the seventh day according to Genesis? If that is so then we had to have existed in some form from the time of Adam and Eve since God was no longer in the routine business of creating anything after the seventh day of creation week. In the case of Christ it is completely logical to say that He existed from all eternity in some form in the Father before He was begotten as God. In fact, in John 1:18 Scripture teaches that Christ is the "only begotten God" (this is the literal translation from the Greek New Testament). The word "begotten" in the passage comes from a Greek word from which we get our English word "generate". To "generate" means to "bring forth" out of pre-existing substance, whereas "to create" means to "bring forth" out of nothing. Just as sunlight is generated (begotten) from the Sun but is not created by the Sun, so, too, Christ was generated (begotten) from the Father but was not created by the Father. Amen!! Amen!!

After Christ was begotten of the Father the Father then through Christ (His only begotten Son) made all the universe (John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-16). And, of course, much later in time Christ was also begotten as man. In John 8:58 we read the words of Christ "Before Abraham was born I AM". It is clear from the use of the words "I AM" in this context that our beloved Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was claiming eternality which only the true God can claim. It is important to understand that, although Christ existed from all eternity within the Father, He was generated (or begotten) as God only once. In other words, God the Father was not eternally generating His Son. The traditional concept or doctrine of the eternal generation of Christ does not make any sense anymore than it would make sense to say that a human father is continually generating (or begetting) the same son over and over again. Christ is eternal, but His generation from the Father is not eternal.

But if Christ was God how, then, could He die? The Scriptures teach that God can and did die. We read in Revelation 1:17-18 "... Fear not; I am the First and the Last: I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen ..." The title "First and the Last" is from the Old Testament and it is a title that belongs only to Jehovah (or God). Thus it is none other than Jehovah (or God) Who is saying that He died. We know from the context of the first chapter in Revelation that it is none other than Christ who is speaking here. No one has the power to kill God, but God can, if He so chooses, give up His life so long as it is for a morally right cause and purpose. Just as it is not morally wrong for one human being to sacrifice his life for another so it is not wrong for God to sacrifice His life for those whom He created. This is exactly what God (the Son) did on the Cross. Philippians 2:5-8 tells us that Christ gave up equality (positionally) with God (the Father) when He became a man and dwelt on the earth. Although He was still God even after He became man, He gave up the rights that He possessed as God when He lived on earth. That is why when He was on earth He was fully dependent upon His Father to perform miracles.

But, if Christ was equally God along with the Father and the Holy Spirit then why did Christ say to His Father in John 17:3 that the Father was the only true God. The word "only" in the passage must be understood in its proper context. Christ was not comparing the Father to Himself when He said the Father was the only true God. Rather, Christ was comparing the Father to the pagan deities that the gentiles of His time worshipped when He was on earth. In comparison to these pagan deities Christ was saying that the Father was the only true God. This has to be the meaning or otherwise we will have a contradiction in the Scriptures. For Scripture also teaches in 1 John 5:20 that Christ is "the true God and eternal life." It is important to understand the words of Scripture in the context of what all of Scripture teaches on any given issue or subject of doctrine.

Doesn't Hebrews 1:4, at least in the King James Version, say that Christ was made better than the angels? The word "made" in the passage is better translated as "became". Christ became better than the angels. Again, at His first coming as Man the Scripture teaches that Christ humbled Himself. He was made (or became) lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9). Hebrews 1:3 teaches that after Christ made purification for sins He sat down at the right hand of God (the Father). That is when He became better than the angels because God the Father had restored to His Son His original position. It was after Christ died for our sins, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God (the Father) that God the Father restored to His Son His preeminent position again (Philippians 2:6-9). This is what Jesus meant when shortly before He went to the Cross He prayed to His Father "And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine Own Self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was" (John 17:5). Christ is still both God and Man, but as Man He became exalted above the angels after He finished His work on earth. Of course, in His essential divine being and nature, however, Christ was always superior to the angels.

The Scriptures clearly teach that Christ is God (e.g. John 1:1; Hebrews 1:8; Titus 2:13). In Titus 2:13 Christ is referred to as "our great God and Savior." In Revelation 1:8 the Lord Jesus Christ Himself makes the claim that He is "the Almighty." It is clear from the context of the chapter that it is Christ Who is speaking. Certainly, the Scriptures do not teach Christ to be a false God as is the case with the Devil who is called "the god (or ruler) of this world." Ephesians 2:2 says that the worldly make the Devil their god and so did believers before they were saved: "in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient." The Devil is a false god and a creature. Christ, on the other hand, is true God and Creator. We read in John 1:3 that without Christ (Who is also called the Word) "not anything was made that was made." Obviously, then, Christ was not made or otherwise He would have had to have made Himself which makes no sense. Colossians 1:17 teaches that Christ "is before all things and by Him all things consist (are sustained)." And Colossians 1:18 says about Christ that "He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence." No creature must have the preeminence in all things. That position belongs only to Jehovah (God) alone, and, thus, Christ must be Jehovah (God) in order for the Scriptures to declare that He must have the preeminence in all things. Glory to God! Only God is capable of fitting such a description!

In certain references of Scripture the Father as God may have preeminence because the Father is the Head of Christ just as Adam was the head of Eve and had a certain preeminence and priority in relationship to her. But, this does not mean that Eve was inferior to Adam. So, similarly Christ is not inferior to the Father even though the Father is the Head of Christ. Of course, while on earth Christ could say that the Father was greater because positionally speaking Christ had humbled Himself in the incarnation by becoming a man and subjecting Himself to the law.

Why does Jesus say in Mark 10:18 "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." Is Jesus not clearly stating that He is not God? No. Jesus was telling them to make up their minds about Him. Why call Him good and not believe that He is God as He claimed to be? After all, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God which means He was God. As Son of Man He was man (a human being) and as Son of God He was God, two natures in one Person. As it was pointed out earlier, in John 8:58 Jesus says "Before Abraham was born I AM". He claimed eternality which only God possess. Only God existed from all eternity. In the Old Testament Jehovah referred to Himself as I AM. Jesus didn't say that "Before Abraham was born I was". Jesus said, "Before Abraham was born I AM".

A question often raised is how could God Who is infinite become incarnated as finite man. The answer is that in the miracle of the Incarnation the infinite God grafted onto Himself finite human nature. The finite didn't contain the infinite, but rather the Infinite contained the finite. Just as a one gallon tank can't hold ten gallons but, yet, a ten gallon tank can hold one gallon so, too, the infinite God (Christ) circumscribed and united to Himself finite human nature when He condescended to become Man. Colossians 2:9 tells us concerning Christ that "in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." The full essence and nature of deity dwelt within His human frame so that He was both fully God as well as fully man. Because of the unique union of His humanity to His deity Christ had full access to all the attributes of His deity - omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence to use under the Father's direction and will.

It is precisely because Christ was God in human flesh that His sacrifice on the cross for our sins had infinite value in the sight of God the Father. It is because Christ was not created or made but, rather, was the eternal and only begotten Son of the Father that it was truly a painful and enormous sacrifice for God the Father to give up His Son over to cruel suffering and death on the Cross for our sins. That is why it is written, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him (His Son Jesus Christ) should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). As Son of God, Christ was fully God and as Son of Man Christ was fully man. The Scriptures use both titles "Son of God" and "Son of Man" in referring to Christ because He was both.

What about Hebrews 1:9 where the Father says to the Son "...therefore God, even Thy God..." Why does the Father say "Thy God" to the Son if the Son is equally God with the Father. How can the Father be God to His own Son and the Son also be God? The great Reformed theologian and Christian writer Arthur W. Pink gives us an understanding to this paradox. In the context of the passage in Hebrews 1:9 the Father's statement to the Son is made after the Son's incarnation and when the Son assumes the throne to His eternal kingdom when it is established. The Son's human nature (in the incarnation) was created by the Father so the Father in that respect was God even to His Son. But in His divinity Christ was equally God with the Father.

Another passage that is often misused by those who deny Christ's deity is 1 Thessalonians 4:16 which reads: "For the Lord Himself (referring to Christ) shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God ..." Because the passage says that Christ will descend with the voice of the archangel some teach that Christ, therefore, is an archangel. But the passage also says that Christ will descend with the trump of God. Does that then make Christ a trumpet? I hope not! The passage is simply saying that the archangel will be involved in introducing the second coming of Christ. It is not saying that Christ is the archangel! The word "angel" itself means "messenger" or "one who is sent" in Greek, the language of the New Testament. The Hebrew Old Testament also has this meaning. The context determines the nature of the messenger. In the Old Testament, for example, the "Angel of the Lord" is understood as being none other than Jehovah. This is seen from the context. Even though the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible the meaning is there in Scripture. Just because a word is not found in Scripture doesn't mean the meaning of that word is not there. For example, the word "theocracy" is not found in Scripture but its meaning exists in Scripture since Israel in the Old Testament was a theocracy which means a nation ruled by God. Even though the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible the meaning is there in Scripture. Just because a word is not found in Scripture doesn't mean the meaning of that word is not there. For example, the word "theocracy" is not found in Scripture but its meaning exists in Scripture since Israel in the Old Testament was a theocracy which means a nation ruled by God.

But isn't the concept of God being a Trinity found in pagan religions? Well, even pagan religions have some elements of original truth even though that original truth may have been perverted by Satan (the Devil). Satan is a copy cat. The Devil takes what he knows is true, perverts and twists it and plants the perverted and twisted forms of the truth in human societies and cultures. Satan didn't invent the concept of the Trinity. Satan already knew that God was a Trinity from the beginning of creation, but Satan planted a perverted and twisted concept of the Trinity into the pagan religions that existed before Christianity so that future generations can be deceived into believing that the Trinity is of pagan origin when it really is not. The Bible teaches that the Devil is a master at such tactics. The pure, unperverted, and uncorrupted truth of the Trinity, however, is found only in the Christian Scriptures.

What about Colossians 1:15 where Christ is referred to as the "Firstborn of all creation"? Doesn't this mean Christ was created? No! The very next verse (verse 16) tells us why Christ is called the Firstborn of all creation. It's not because He was created but precisely the opposite: because He is the Creator of all things. The preposition "of" in the original language of the Greek New Testament can also be translated as "over." In other words, Christ Who is God the Father's Firstborn is over all creation because it was through Christ that the Father created all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). The term "firstborn" in Scripture is the title given to the one in the family who inherits everything. It is a positional title more than anything else. In the Old Testament God had referred to David as being His "firstborn" even though David was the youngest of the children in his family. This was because David would eventually rule over all Israel. Thus, God used the term "firstborn" as a title of position. In reference to Christ, it is important to understand that the title "firstborn" does not imply that Christ was simply the first among other divinely begotten sons of God. John 1:18 makes it clear that Christ is God's only begotten. So God had no other divinely begotten sons. In the case of Christ the title "firstborn" is used simply to describe His position in relation to creation - that He is Supreme over all creation.

What about Revelation 3:14 where Christ calls Himself "the beginning of the creation of God." Doesn't that teach Christ was created? No! The word for "beginning" in the passage comes from the Greek root "arche" which means "origin" or "source." In other words, Christ is the beginning (the origin or source) of God's creation. It doesn't mean that Christ Himself was created!

how can Jesus be God while he Himself prayed to God? How can Jesus be God when Jesus is called the Son of God? The word "God" is a name. That name belongs equally to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is why Christ said to His disciples, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19).

My last name is "Ranganathan". My father's last name was "Ranganathan" (he passed away). When I talked to my father, while he was alive, it was "Ranganathan" talking to "Ranganathan". How could "Ranganathan" talk to "Ranganathan"? Because both, my father and I, were "Ranganathan".

But, doesn't the Bible say there is only one God? The Bible also says Adam and Even were one flesh (Genesis 2:24). Does that mean that Adam and Eve were one person? Of course, not! They were one because they shared the same nature. So, too, Jesus and the Father are two Persons but one God because they share the one Divine nature. They are also one in fellowship and purpose. In both these ways Jesus and His Father are one God. There is one God but that one God exists in Three distinct Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is more than Person in the one God. That is why God says in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (notice the plural language, "us" and "our" used in the passage). The plural language here cannot refer to God speaking on behalf of Himself and of the angels because the angels did not create man and, furthermore, the angels do not share the image of God.

When the name "God" is mentioned in Scripture without specifying the Son or the Spirit it is usually understood as referring to the Father.

In John 1:1 shouldn't Christ be referred to as a God because there is no Greek article? The absence of the Greek article does not necessarily mean that the letter "a" is to be substituted. The context must demand it. There are various places in Scripture where the Father is referred to as God without the Greek article (i.e. John 1:6) but no one would refer the Father as a God because there is no Greek article. In any case, there are definite passages in Scripture where Christ is referred to as "the God", that is with the Greek article (i.e. Hebrews 1:8).

I've actually had someone tell me that it doesn't matter if Christ is referred to as "the God" in the Greek New Testament Scriptures because even the Apostle Paul and Silas (who were mere men) were referred to as "the Gods" by pagans in the Greek New Testament Scriptures. But it's one thing for pagans to assert something since pagans can be wrong about what they believe, and the pagans were wrong when they believed Paul and Silas to be "the Gods", but it's quite another thing when the Apostles themselves who wrote the Holy Scriptures assert that Jesus Christ is "the God." Just because what pagans believe and say is recorded in Scripture doesn't mean that's what Scripture is teaching! After all, the lies of the Devil are accurately recorded in Scripture but that doesn't mean Scripture supports or teaches those lies. On the other hand, when the very Apostles who wrote the Greek New Testament Scriptures, by the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit, assert and teach that Christ is "the God" we are not then talking about what pagans believe or say but rather what the Spirit of God Himself is saying through the Apostles. And what the Apostles say and teach we must not reject! The fact is Christ, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is equally the God. There are no two Gods (a little God and a big God as the cults teach). Neither are there three Gods. Rather, there is one God in three distinct Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Bible clearly teaches in various passages that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God and, yet, the Bible also teaches there is only one God. Thus, what we are to understand is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three divine Persons Who share one divine nature and Who are also one in purpose and fellowship. As Christians we may be one with God in fellowship and purpose but we are not one with God in sharing His eternal and divine nature. The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in both their divine nature and in their fellowship, communion, and purpose.

It is very unfortunate that so many in the cults have distorted and twisted what the Scriptures teach regarding the Person and work of our precious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. True Christians throughout history, regardless of denomination, have always agreed on the primary and foundational truths regarding the nature of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. Where Christians have differed throughout history is in matters of secondary doctrine. The reader can find helpful materials at his or her local Christian bookstore to become better equipped to argue against the cults.

Is Avatar Scientific?

2010-04-03T16:14:00.001-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

We hear it all the time. "Mother Nature" designed this or "Mother Nature" designed that. Wow! (A moment of silence, please...). The latest and popular film, Avatar, is a worship of Nature.

But, just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it originated from nature. If all the chemicals that make-up an earthworm were scattered and left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would have no ability to re-organize them into a worm again. It takes an already existing worm to bring about another worm.

Although it has been shown that some amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, can come into existence by chance, it has never been shown that the various amino acids can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. The only reason why amino acids come together into a sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already existing genetic code or program (DNA) which also is made up of molecules arranged in a precise sequence.

If there weren't any already existing DNA and protein molecules, poor "Mother Nature" would be helpless to make any DNA and proteins.

In the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.

All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.

Recent news reports suggest that scientists may be close to creating artificial (synthetic) life. None of this is happening by chance but by intelligent design and planning. Why, then, will many not give credit to God for the original DNA and life?

In the case involving synthetic (artificial) life, scientists don't actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter. What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing living cell and, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

As mentioned earlier, it has been shown that some of the basic building blocks of life, amino acids, can come into existence by chance, but it has never been shown that the various amino acids can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of protein molecules. An average protein molecule may have five hundred amino acids arranged sequentially. Larger protein molecules may have thousands. The simplest cell has millions of complex protein molecules!

Without DNA there cannot be RNA, and without RNA there cannot be DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there cannot be proteins, and without proteins there cannot be DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! The cell is irreducibly complex. It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

Once there is a complete, living, and fully functioning cell then, of course, the genetic program and the complex biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. In a complete and living cell, the cell membrane allows for certain raw materials and molecules from the environment to enter into the cell. Once inside the cell, the genetic code and other complex biological mechanisms direct these raw materials or molecules to form into more cells with their own genetic code and complex mechanisms. The question is how could life have come about naturally on Earth when there was no already existing code or directing mechanism in Nature.

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

We tend to judge something as being simple or complex by its size. So many of us assume that because the cell is microscopic in size that it must be simple. Not so! Size is relative, but not complexity. If you were as big as the Empire State building you would probably think that the tiny cars and automobiles on the street were simple and could easily happen by a chance combination of parts. However, we know that is not so.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

Science cannot prove how life originated since no human observed the origin of life by either chance or design. Observation and detection by the human senses, either directly or indirectly through scientific instruments, is the basis of science and for establishing proof. The issue is which position has better scientific support. Both sides should have the opportunity to present their case.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

Many think that natural selection in nature is proof that we had evolved. Natural selection does occur in nature. However, natural selection itself does not produce biological variations. Natural selection can only work with biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. It is a passive process in nature. Natural selection is simply another way of saying that if a biological variation occurs which is helpful to an animal or plant's survival then that that variation will be preserved and be passed on. Of course, nature does not do any active or conscious selecting. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech.

Also, natural selection only applies once there is life and not before. In other words, natural selection is not involved in any pre-biotic, non-living interactions of chemicals.

Evolutionists believe that random or chance mutations in the genetic code (caused by random environmental forces such as radiation) will produce the favorable evolutionary changes necessary for natural selection to act upon.

However, there is no evidence that random or chance mutations in the genetic code are capable of producing greater biological complexity (vertical evolution) among natural species. Mutations are only capable of producing horizontal evolution (variations within natural species). In any case, most biological variations among natural species are due to new combinations of already existing genes and not mutations.

What about “Junk DNA”? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA” isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species are due to a common Designer rather than common evolutionary ancestry. It is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life.

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity, which could have easily spewed dirt-containing microbes into outer space, which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

Just because the right conditions exist to sustain life doesn't mean that those conditions can bring life into being by chance.

We know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. It requires a beginning. But, we also know from science that natural laws could not have brought the universe into being from nothing. The beginning of the universe, therefore, points to a supernatural origin!

All of this simply means that real science supports faith in God. Again, science cannot prove that we are here by chance (evolution) or by design (creation). However, the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other. It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools, which receive funding from taxpayers, who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state.

What we believe about our origins will influence our philosophy and value of life. This is no small matter!

As a religion and science writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at my website www.religionscience.com for more in-depth study of the issue.

The Institute for Creation research (www.icr.org) has many good articles, books, and resources from Ph.D or Master's degreed scientists who believe in creation and who believe that true scientific supports creation.

UFOs, Aliens, and Christianity

2010-04-03T16:13:00.001-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Former Apollo 14 astronaut, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, has recently made it public knowledge that aliens exist and that NASA officials have had contact with them. Dr. Mitchell says that there has been a sixty-year cover-up by our government of the existence and reality of aliens.

No doubt, all this will be used to support evolution and discredit the Bible. The fact remains, however, that science has shown that only micro-evolution (variations within a biological kind such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is possible but not macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds or from simpler kinds to more complex ones). The reader is encouraged to read the author's article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at www.religionscience.com. Mathematical probability alone has shown that it is not rational, logical, or scientific to believe that life could originate by chance.

Alien beings cannot wait millions of years to evolve complex and necessary organs for survival anymore than species on earth. Imagine a species waiting millions of years for reproductive organs to evolve so that it can finally reproduce!

Then, how do we explain aliens if they are for real? The Bible teaches that Satan and his demons (the fallen angels) can take on take all sorts of shapes and perform all sorts of miracles in order to deceive mankind. In fact, some who have been claimed to be abducted by aliens say that these aliens have told them things that undermine the truth of the Christian Scriptures and the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

This is not say that God cannot create life on other planets, but the point being made here is that the supposed alien contacts popularly mentioned are not actual alien beings at all but, instead, may be the work of dark supernatural forces.

Another possibility for the UFO's is that they are products of humans from long ago. There is substantial archaeological evidence of ancient humans having advanced technology and civilizations.

The Christian Gospel is unique, unlike any other religious teaching. That in itself is powerful evidence of its true and divine origin. The Christian Scriptures teach that man can never earn his salvation and that salvation is only by the grace (undeserved act) of God through faith in Jesus Christ, God's eternal and only begotten Son Who paid for our sins on the Cross through His suffering and death and Who rose bodily from the grave after three days.

Just as a co-signer to a loan takes the legal responsibility of paying for the loan should the borrower of the loan be unable to pay , Jesus Christ, because He was both divine and human and sinless, was able to take the responsibility to pay mankind's moral and spiritual debt to God. Through His suffering, shed blood on the Cross, and death He paid for our sins by taking the punishment for our sins upon Himself that we may be freely forgiven through faith in Him.

All other religions, no matter how different they may be from each other, teach basically the same thing, that man can save himself through his own good deeds. The Christian Gospel, however, teaches that man is completely fallen and can never be good enough to earn salvation, indeed cannot even be spiritually good at all in God's eyes apart from Christ. For God only sees what is done for His glory as being good. God is not being egotistical. By the very nature of things, truth demands that God be the reason and motive for our deeds and the object of our life and worship. God Himself would be sinning if He demanded anything less that Himself as the reason and motive behind our life and deeds!

Although good deeds cannot save us, once a person is saved in Christ he can and will begin to perform good deeds out of true love for God and his fellow man because of the Holy Spirit of God in his life Who has changed him. Good deeds do not produce salvation but salvation will produce good deeds.

The Christian is not perfect in this life or fully saved yet in this life. A Christian, in this life, will not always do good deeds because he still possess a sin nature, but, at least, the Christian will have a new heart and will always perform some, if not many, good deeds that are truly and spiritually good from God's point of view, the only view that counts!

The Christian Gospel is an offense to the natural thinking of man. Unfortunately, sometimes we Christians unnecessarily add to this offense by the way we share the Gospel and/or by some erroneous doctrine that we attach to it.

The uniqueness of the Christian Gospel shows that it could not have originated from fallen man or aliens. To Christ be all the victory!

"For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves: It is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

For those not familiar with the Bible, the above quotations are from chapters and verses of two books (the book of Ephesians and the book of John) in the New Testament part of the King James Version Christian Bible or Scripture.

What About Monkeys That Look Caucasian?

2010-04-03T16:11:00.010-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Some time ago a photo of the First Lady, Michelle Obama, was doctored up on an Internet site "Hot Girls" so that she appeared to have ape-like features. This is a horrible and offensive photo. We need to have a conversation on this topic now. Not long ago a team of psychologists from Stanford, Penn State, and UC Berkeley have reported that blacks are likely to be thought of by other races as being sub-human and associated with apes: http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/discrimination-against-blacks-linked-dehumanization. Let's admit it! Many people, even blacks themselves, wonder whether black people are more closely related to apes because of certain facial features or other similarities. This issue needs to be dealt with in the open and honestly.

Well, let me ask this question. Are bull dogs more closely related to cats because they have flat faces and short legs? Obviously not! A bull dog can be crossed with other dogs but not a cat! Neither are blacks more closely related to apes! There are monkeys which have some very fine features resembling those of white people (Do an image search for "Snow Monkeys" on Google and see for yourself). Does that mean whites are more closely related to these monkeys? Of course not!

Doesn't the Bible teach that Ham, the ancestor of the Black race, was cursed? No! The Bible teaches that the curse was on Canaan who was only one of the sons of Ham. The curse was not on Ham himself. The Canaanites were finally destroyed as a civilization long, long ago.

In fact, the word "Ham" means black. Noah named one of his sons "Ham" because he was born black. This was before there was any curse by Noah. Ham was born black before there was any curse! Black skin is not a curse and science shows that it protects from harmful, cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation from the Sun in tropical climate and weather. It's a blessing, not a curse. Only figuratively speaking are "black" and "white" considered as "good" and "evil". Physical blackness and physical whiteness have nothing to do with good and evil. Do you kick your dog because it's black? Do you stop eating dark chocolate because it's black?

Ultimately, all life forms on earth share varying similarities because of a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various species and life forms on Earth.

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties or "races" of people could come from the same original human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair ( i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue ) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown ). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

In reality there is only one race - the human race - within which exists myriad variations and permutations. Just as you can get a pure bred from a mutt but not a mutt from a pure bred, so too all varieties of humans were able to come from Adam and Eve our first parents.

There are many genetic and biological similarities between various species. This does not necessarily mean that all life evolved from a common ancestor. A better explanation is that the similarities are due to a common Designer (God) who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information cannot happen by chance anymore than other forms of information can happen by chance. Science can't prove it but science can and does point to God as the first Genetic Engineer! It's only logical, dear Watson.

All varieties of humans belong to one natural species since all varieties of human beings are inter-fertile, and this is biological proof that we are all descendants of a common human ancestor. This is why the Bible says that God "hath made of one all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth ..." (Acts 17:26, KJV). The Bible clearly teaches that God created all human beings in His image. Therefore, as one of my former pastors, Dr. Carl E. Abrahamsen, Jr., so truthfully and eloquently stated, to hate a fellow human being who has been created in the image of God because of the way he or she looks is a great and serious sin and offense against God which needs to be confessed and repented of before the Almighty.

Jerry Falwell Vs. The Hyper-Separatists

2010-04-03T16:11:00.001-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Aside from differences in secondary doctrine between myself and Dr. Falwell, I know one thing for sure about Dr. Falwell and that is he was an authentic Christian. Dr. Falwell was not a hyper-separatist when it came to people in the world or to his Christian brethren. He believed in true Biblical separation from sin but not in man-made hyper-separation from sinners and fellow Christian believers.

Dr. Falwell would not separate from you because you buy your bread and milk from a grocery store that sells cigarettes and pornography. He would not condemn you as being a supporter of cigarettes and pornography because you bought a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread from such a place. That is an example of a hyper-separatist. Dr. Falwell loved his fellow believers and he loved the sinners in the world knowing very well that all true believers are really sinners saved by the undeserving grace of God. He never equated being a friend to sinners as being in friendship with sin. Motives in Christianity mean everything and may I say that Dr. Falwell's motives were impeccably genuine.

Liberty University is an outstanding Christian school and one that does not compromise on basic tenets such as creationism. Yes, they teach what the other side says, not to be in support of it, but to contrast it with the truth, both biblical truth as well as scientific truth.

I am not saying that all hyper-separatists among Christians are the same. There are varying degrees of hyper-separatism from moderate to extreme. The examples I have given above are among the most extreme and worst kinds of hyper-separatism.

A hyper-separatist can never be truly consistent. At some point, whether it be at the 1st degree of separation or at the 10th degree or more of separation, the hyper-separatist will find himself violating his own standard of separation. A close examination of the lives and the associations of any hyper-separatist will reveal this to be the case. Ultimately, the hyper-separatist will have to separate from his own self to be true to his convictions! Such is the absurdity of hyper-separation.

Dr. Jerry Falwell was a man who loved God, who loved sinners but hated their sin as well as his own sins, a humble man, not self-righteous, but Christ-righteous and proudly owning his Christ-righteousness before others, always boasting in his beloved Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ and in His Gospel.

Pastor Falwell was a man who sought as much common ground as morally possible with those in the world and with fellow Christians who differed with him on matters of secondary doctrine. Seeking such common ground is not sin or compromising on convictions that one holds.

Most definitely does Dr. Falwell have his Lord's "Well done thou good and faithful servant", and the Lord has pulled out all the arrows that were inflicted on him from those in the world and, sadly, from fellow Christians. Enjoy thy great rewards in the Lord, brother Falwell!

Unquenchable Fire Won't Burn Eternally!

2010-04-03T16:10:00.004-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

The Bible teaches that "unquenchable fire" has an end.

For example, in the Old Testament Book of Jeremiah 17:27 we read that when God comes in judgment upon Israel that the gates and palaces of Jerusalem will burn and that the fire will "not be quenched". In Ezekiel 20:47 we read that every green tree and dry tree will burn and that the fire will "not be quenched". Are any of these things still burning today? Of course not! Then, why does God say in Scripture that when He comes in judgment against Israel that all these things will burn and that the fire will "not be quenched"?

When Scripture talks about fire that will not be quenched ("unquenchable fire") what it means is that the process of destruction is unstoppable or irreversible. It is important to understand just why God uses such terms in Scripture as "unquenchable fire". In the Bible, there were some judgments of God in which His wrath was quenched or stopped such as in the case when Moses interceded and pleaded before God for the rebellious Israelites in the desert. When Moses did this God stopped or quenched His wrath against the rebellious Israelites. Thus, when God says, in Scripture, that the wicked in the end will be destroyed with unquenchable fire what He simply means is that nothing can intervene to prevent Him from carrying out His wrath fully through to its completion. Over and over in the Scriptures God is described in judgment as being a consuming fire. God's righteous wrath in judgment is not an end in itself but a means to an end.

God will completely consume or devour the object of His holy wrath. Unlike the burning bush in Exodus (which was not an object of God's judgment or wrath) and which Moses observed was not consumed in the fire but instead was preserved by God, the Scriptures teach that God in judgment will not preserve the wicked in the fire of hell but instead will completely consume and destroy them! While they are burning in hell, the wicked will suffer consciously for their individual sins, but their eternal punishment ultimately will be their eternal destruction and loss of life.

When the Bible talks about eternal judgment, or eternal damnation, or eternal destruction, it’s in reference to the result and not the process! It is not the punishing that is eternal but, rather, the punishment! It is not the destroying that is eternal but, rather, the destruction! It is not the dying that is eternal but, rather, the death. Just as eternal redemption in the Bible doesn’t mean that the process of redeeming is eternal but, rather, the result (no one would be saved if the process of redeeming were eternal) so, too, the eternal judgment of the wicked doesn’t mean that their judging is eternal but, rather, their judgment (the result) is what's eternal!

What about "eternal fire" mentioned in the Bible? Scripture says in Jude 7 that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by eternal fire. These cities are no longer still burning. How, then, can the fire be called "eternal"? Because the result that the fire produced is eternal - these cities have never existed again, nor will they.

"Unquenchable fire" in Scripture may have an eternal result or it may not have an eternal result depending upon the context of Scripture. For example, the unquenchable fire, mentioned in Jeremiah 17:27, that destroyed Jerusalem was not eternal in its result because Jerusalem as a city was later rebuilt again.

Contrary to popular belief and interpretation, the phrase in Scripture "where their worm dieth not" is not a reference to the undying human soul or conscience. The worm and fire were figures that people in Jesus' time could readily identify and understand because in that time the dead bodies of those who suffered dishonor in society were all commonly thrown into a certain valley where fire and worms devoured these bodies. Jesus simply seeks to convey, in figurative language, that in hell (gehenna) neither the fire nor the worm will cease until the wicked are totally consumed or destroyed!

What about "weeping and gnashing of teeth forever and ever", the account by Jesus about the Rich Man and Lazarus, and other similar passages in the Bible that seem to teach eternal torment? The key, in many cases, is in understanding the context in which these and other similar phrases are used in various parts of Scripture.

In Scripture the word "forever" does not always mean endless or eternal duration. For example, in Exodus 21:6 (KJV Version) we read that certain people were to be servants "forever". Obviously this cannot mean eternity. The word "forever" or "everlasting", in the original Hebrew and Greek languages of Scripture, simply means the entire length or duration of something. If that something is immortal then the word "forever" must mean eternity. But, if that something is mortal or temporary in nature then, obviously, the word "forever" cannot mean eternity.

Thus, when the Bible teaches hell as being "forever" it cannot mean eternity because the same Bible teaches that those who go to hell are mortal and will be totally consumed or destroyed. The word "forever" in this case must mean the entire length that the wicked suffer consciously for their individual sins before they are finally and eternally destroyed. Hell is not eternal but the result produced by hell is eternal! The Scripture teaches that only Christians will inherit immortality and eternal life!

Again, the wicked in hell, for a period, will suffer consciously for their individual sins, the ultimate penalty for sin itself will be the eternal death of soul and body and the eternal loss to immortality. That is what the Bible means by eternal punishment - the eternal loss to immortality and life. Interestingly, even Adam and Eve were not created as immortal from the beginning. That is why there was placed the Tree of Life in the midst of the Garden of Eden. As one preacher has put it: "Eternal punishment is the eternal loss of life not an eternal life of loss".

If pain is necessary for punishment then why do some societies have the death penalty? When a murderer is put to death he no longer feels pain. If he did then he wouldn't be dead. One thing for sure is that a murderer put to death by society no longer feels any pain from society. Does that then mean that society has not punished him since he no longer feels any more pain from society?

In Genesis 2:17 God told Adam not to eat the fruit of a certain tree (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) and God also told Adam that if he did eat of it he would die on that very day. Specifically, God said to Adam, "For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." But the Biblical record shows that Adam did not physically die on the very day he disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit. Because Adam did not physically die on the very day that he disobeyed God most Christians believe that God was referring to spiritual death and not physical death.
However, in the original Hebrew, in which the Old Testament was written, the grammatical tense of the word "die" in Genesis 2:17 is in the imperfect mood. The imperfect mood denotes a process. Thus, what God was actually saying to Adam is that he would start dying on the day he ate the forbidden fruit. The literal translation from the Hebrew of what God said to Adam is: "Dying you will die." God was not, therefore, referring to spiritual death but to physical death. The fact that God later prevented Adam and Eve from having access to the tree of life (Genesis 3:22-24) so that they would not live eternally in sin proves that God was referring to physical death and not spiritual death.

There are good Scriptural reasons to believe that the soul also is physical but distinct from the rest of the body, but that is another subject. Whether physical or not physical, man's soul, along with the rest of man, was created completely mortal and that is the primary point being addressed here.

The penalty for sin, then, is the death of both soul and body so that man will not live forever in sin. Not only is God not cruel in His eternal justice, but a holy God will not allow His moral creatures to exist eternally in sin. God will not immortalize sin and evil by making the wicked in hell immortal! In fact, Jesus Himself emphasizes in Scripture that both the soul and body of the wicked will be destroyed (not kept alive) in hell (Matthew 10:28). All of this contradicts the traditional doctrine and teaching, taught in most churches, about the wicked having an immortal soul and body in hell.

The Bible teaches that man by nature is completely mortal and that immortality is a gift of God to be realized only on Resurrection Day for those who have put their faith and trust in God's Son Jesus Christ for salvation because Christ's death on the Cross fully paid for our sins and His resurrection from the grave is the guarantee of future immortality for all who believe in Him.

Few in society realize just how much ancient Greek philosophy influenced early Christian thought on hell.

The ancient Greeks believed and taught that the human soul is immortal and indestructible. When early Christianity adopted this belief then it became only logical to believe that those who go to hell must suffer eternal torment.

More than anyone else, the early Church bishop Augustine influenced early Christianity's adoption of this ancient Greek belief about the nature of the soul. Augustine was a great admirer and follower of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato even after converting to Christianity. It was Plato who systematically formulated ancient Greek belief and thought concerning the nature of the human soul.

Some have argued that because man was created in the image of God then all humans must possess an immortal soul. However, being created in the image of God doesn't necessarily mean that we must possess every attribute or even possible attribute that God possesses. For example, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent - but we are not. The Bible is clear that immortality is an attribute that will be given only on Resurrection Day for those who have put their trust in Christ for salvation.

Eternal life in Scripture has the same meaning as immortality (i.e. Romans 2:7) which Christians will possess only in the future on Resurrection Day. Various Scripture passages teach immortality and eternal life to be a future possession for Christians. Why then did Jesus use the present tense when saying those who believe in Him have eternal life? The answer is that sometimes in the Bible the present tense is used to describe future events for the purpose of demonstrating their certainty. Scripture says God "calleth those things which be not as though they were" (Romans 4:17).

The Bible says Jesus Christ "hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10). The opposite of eternal life (or immortality) is eternal death (the eternal and literal death of soul and body) - not eternally living in torment and suffering! "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23). "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting (eternal) life" (John 3:16). The issue is not what we think eternal punishment ought to be. The issues are God's character, God's definition of ultimate justice, and God's eternal purposes.

We must base our views of hell and the after life on what the Bible teaches, not on tradition or mere human philosophies and opinions. We must not impose our philosophy of what God ought to be upon Holy Scripture! Not many people realize the fact that in the New Testament there are different Greek words for the word "hell." But unfortunately the English Bible translates these different words for hell as one word, and this has been a cause of much confusion for those who wish to study the subject. The New Testament Greek words for hell are "Hades" and "Gehenna" and they both have different meanings. Hades means the unseen world of the dead and is only a temporary abode. It has nothing to do with punishment or reward. It is equivalent to the Hebrew word "Sheol" in the Old Testament in its meaning. Gehenna, on the other hand, is the abode of eternal punishment of the wicked.

Scripture teaches that both the wicked and righteous will be resurrected, but only the righteous (in and through Christ’s redemptive work) will obtain immortal bodies. The wicked will not inherit immortal bodies. They will be judged for their sins and in hell will suffer consciously for their individual sins before they are eternally destroyed in body and soul.

The Bible is clear that before the resurrection there is no consciousness of the souls who are said to be in Hades. There are some Scripture verses that seem to teach consciousness after death and before the resurrection, but, when studied in the context of Scripture, it will be seen that it is not so. Didn’t the repentant thief on the Cross be Jesus in Paradise that very day he died? What about when the Apostle Paul says in Scripture “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”? The answers to these, and other similar passages, are found in my larger article on the subject “The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell” at: http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-vs-traditional-view-of-hell.html.

The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16 has often been used by many Christians, especially preachers, as a depiction of the punishment that the wicked will suffer in hell. But this is not the case. In the first place when Jesus refers to the Rich Man being in torment in the flame of hell the Greek word for "hell" in the passage is not "Gehenna" (the place of final and eternal punishment), but rather it is the Greek word "Hades" (which in Scripture is the temporary abode of the dead).

The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, like the other series of parables before it, was used of the Lord to illustrate or depict the end of the rule of the Pharisees and to depict the end of the Jewish Era and dispensation (as represented by the Rich Man being in torment) and it was also used of the Lord to depict or illustrate the elevation of Gentile Christendom (as represented by Lazarus). Actually, Lazarus represented the poor Jews of Jesus' time who were ignored by the self-righteous religious leaders of Israel and he also represented the gentiles who, although rejected by the Jewish leaders, would nevertheless be accepted into the bosom of Abraham through their new found faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. The religious leaders of Israel had lived only for themselves and ignored the spiritual needs of the spiritually sick and starving people around them.

The concept that Hades was a place divided into two compartments, one of suffering for the wicked and the other of bliss for the righteous, was a Jewish belief that had developed during the Intertestamental period, the period of time in between when the Old and New Testaments were written. Thus, this particular view of Hades was not canonical, that is it was not something that God Himself had revealed to the Jews through Scripture. There is no evidence in Scripture that Hades is a place where the wicked suffer while awaiting their final and permanent judgment in Gehenna. Such a concept of Hades developed as a result of ancient Greek influences on Jewish thinking about the nature of the soul. In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus was simply borrowing this popular Jewish folklore of Hades to use as an illustration to make a point to the Pharisees and religious leaders of His day, but He was not necessarily endorsing the folklore as being doctrinally valid or correct. There are various passages in the Old Testament, such as in Psalms, that tell us that there is no consciousness in Sheol (the Hebrew equivalent of Hades in the Old Testament).

Some argue that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not a parable because Jesus did not formally introduce it as a parable. But, Jesus did not always formally introduce His stories as parables, and there are various examples of that in the Gospels. Now, it is true that in His parables Jesus used things that actually existed to fill in for illustrations and figures, but in the particular case of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus the Lord used a popular existing Jewish myth about Hades for the purposes of constructing a story. Jesus simply used the Pharisees' own superstitious belief about Hades against them!

Why didn't Jesus rebuke the Pharisees' belief about Hades as being wrong? Jesus didn't go around always rebuking every wrong doctrine. For example, in Jesus' time it was a common Jewish belief (from the influence of Greek philosophy) that souls could commit individual sins before birth. That is why we read in John 9:1-3 that Jesus' disciples believed a certain man was born blind because he may have committed some great sin before his physical conception in the womb. Jesus didn't respond by telling His disciples that such a belief is doctrinally wrong but instead healed the blind man.

By no means is all of this new teaching. A minority of Christians, of various denominations, have held to this view of hell throughout the centuries. Even some very prominent Christians of the past have held to this view and there are a number (albeit a minority) of Christian theologians and scholars in the present who hold to this view. However, this view on hell, unfortunately, is known so little outside the Christian community and even inside the Christian community for that matter.

Many of the early Protestant Reformers, including Martin Luther, held to the view that man, by nature, is entirely mortal (including the soul), but the great Reformer John Calvin opposed this view and specifically wrote against it and insisted that all of the Reformers present a united front. An excellent Internet site containing information on all of this is Champions of Conditional Immortality In History (http://www.specialtyinterests.net/champions_of_conditional_immortality.html).

I highly recommend to all readers Dr. Edward Fudge's thoroughly biblical and scholarly work The Fire That Consumes (http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-14342-3 ). The book is foreworded by the great evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce. This book should be required reading in every seminary and Bible school.

I encourage all to read my larger Internet article "The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell" at www.religionscience.com for more comprehensive and in-depth coverage of this subject. Other questions and arguments, not raised here, are answered thoroughly in my larger article. I also hope that this information will shed new light in reading the New Testament, particularly the Gospels.

Which Jesus: Christian or Muslim?

2010-04-03T16:08:00.012-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Muslims claim to respect Jesus Christ as one of God's prophets, but the Jesus that Muslims believe and respect is a different Jesus from what The Christian Scriptures (The Bible) reveals. And it is the Jesus of the Christian Scriptures that all men will face on Judgment Day! The Muslims believe that Jesus was just a great and holy man, but not the uniquely divine Son of God who created all life and the universe as the Christian Scriptures teach. Jesus Christ Himself, in the Christian Scriptures, claims to be uniquely divine and the Son of God. This the Muslims will not accept. The Muslims sincerely believe they are honoring Jesus but they are sincerely wrong as long as they refuse to accept Jesus Christ as the Supreme Lord and Savior. Calling two different persons the same name doesn't make them the same. The Jesus of the Koran is not the Jesus of the Bible!

The Muslims claim that the Christian Bible has been changed, but all the evidence from hundreds of ancient manuscripts show that the message of the Bible has not been changed but, instead, remarkably and substantively preserved through centuries. The present Christian New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ is completely trustworthy.

Unlike the Koran, the Christian Scriptures were written over a span of thousands of years, and numerous ancient manuscripts of both Old and New Testaments show that the Christian Bible we have today is completely reliable, unchanged in any substantive way. God preserved the Judeo-Christian Scriptures remarkably.

The New Testament teaches that Jesus Christ was uniquely the Son of God, both completely divine and completely human, that He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, and died a cruel death on a Roman Cross to pay the full penalty for the sins of men, and who bodily rose from the grave.

The Christian Scriptures teach that no human being can earn or merit salvation no matter how many good works are done, that all our righteousness is filthy rags in God's infinitely holy sight and falls infinitely short of the perfection in thoughts, words, and deeds that God requires from every life. The Christian Scriptures teach that only through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior can a person be freely forgiven by God of all his or her sins. The Christian will never be perfect in this life, but God Himself will dwell within the true Christian and cause the Christian to do good works out of genuine love for his God and his fellow man. God can be just in freely forgiving our sins when we come to Christ because His Son Jesus Christ paid the full price of all sins and iniquities.

How could Jesus take the guilt and blame for sins we have committed? The arrangement was made in eternity past between the Father and the Son for the Son to take the responsibility for the moral actions of all those whom the Father gave the Son from every nation and tribe in the world. God has a right to His own jurisprudence!

Just as a co-signer to a loan takes the responsibility to pay someone's else's debt should the loan go into default so too Christ took the legal and moral responsibility of debt for the sins of mankind and we are all sinners and we all have an infinite moral and spiritual debt before an infinitely holy God that we can never be able to fully pay through anything that we can do.

Even Muslims will accept the fact that the first man, Adam, took the moral responsibility for the whole human race in his act of disobeying God's command not to eat of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. So, why should not Jesus Christ be able to take the moral responsibility of those who will be saved through His perfect obedience to the Father.

The Bible says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16, KJV).

I encourage all Muslims, and everyone, to read the Gospel of John in the New Testament.

Readers are encouraged to read the author's article "Christ Was Begotten, Not Created" at www.religionscience.com

How Do Egg Yolks Become Chickens?

2010-04-03T16:08:00.011-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

How does that bright yellow blob in a chicken egg turn into little bones, beak, eyes, ears, brain, heart, nerves, arteries, muscles, lungs, legs, and everything else that makes up a live, breathing, cute, and cuddly chicken?

Don't we eat eggs for food? You can fry an egg, boil an egg, scramble an egg, but how can a living, breathing, cuddly baby chicken come from that same egg! We must understand a little about how DNA works. When a hen's egg is fertilized by a rooster, then that egg possess a complete set of DNA (genetic instructions) from its parents. When you understand how your DNA gave you your body you'll also understand how DNA can turn an egg yolk into a chicken.

The subject of DNA is very much in the headlines and news but very few have bothered to learn or understand just how this amazing molecule works and how it makes us what we are from head to toe. Haven't you ever asked yourself how you got your nose, eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and everything else? How did your DNA bring all this about? Before we answer that question we need to know just a few simple things about DNA. DNA is the abbreviated name for the genetic code and it is exactly that - a code. It is a sequential molecular string of chemical information.

DNA is located in the nucleus of our cells and is made up of various smaller molecules called nucleic acids. These various smaller molecules in our DNA are arranged in an exact sequence, just like the various letters found in a sentence. The sequence of these nucleic acids tells the cells in our body how to build our nose, eyes, hands, feet, and everything else. If the sequence for something isn't there our bodies won't build it!

The material our body used to build our nose, eyes, ears, brain, and all of our other tissues, organs and structures, and the material our body uses daily to build new cells to replace the ones that are dying comes from the food we eat. Food is not just for energy. Food is also the "lumber" and "bricks" the body uses to build new cells. When a cell multiplies it makes more cells of the same size. The only way to do this is by getting new material and that new material comes from food.

Think about it! When we were in our mother's womb we started off as a single cell not even weighing an ounce at conception. Eventually we developed arms, hands, legs, feet and organs such as brain, heart, lungs, liver, stomach, until we had a complete body. It's true that the single cell we once were multiplied into many more cells, but where did the material come from for that one cell to multiply into billions of more cells of equal size and eventually making a body weighing several pounds from something that didn't even weigh an ounce in the beginning. The material came from our mother's food.

When food is digested and broken down to its basic amino acids the various amino acids are then rearranged in a certain sequence to form cells that make up the various tissues and organs. What sequence these amino acids come together in is determined by the sequence of the molecules in DNA.

Remember, even after all our organs are formed the cells that make up our organs are continually dying and need to be replaced. Again, the material to make more cells to replace the ones that are dying comes from food.

Thus, when you feed your dog a T-bone steak your dog's DNA will make sure that steak is digested and rearranged to form the various parts of your dog, but when you eat the same steak your DNA will make sure that the steak is digested and rearranged to form human parts.

The sequence of molecules in the DNA of a chicken egg turned the food material (egg yolk and whites) of a chicken egg into a cuddly little bird!

Contrary to popular public belief about how evolution is supposed to occur, it doesn't matter what the environment is like. If the genetic information for a certain trait or characteristic is not already in the DNA (or genetic code) of a species then there is nothing in the environment that is capable of putting that information there so that the species would develop that particular trait or characteristic. In other words, it doesn't matter how much a lizard may need to fly in order to be able to survive. If the genetic information for feathers and wings are not in the DNA of a lizard then that lizard will never develop feathers and wings.

The environment can only work with the genetic potential already existing in species, but what the environment cannot do is increase that genetic potential. It would require genetic engineering through intelligent design to accomplish that, not random mutations. The genetic potential (the actual genes) exist in all species for micro-evolution (variation within a "kind" such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.), but not for macro-evolution (variation across "kind").

Another problem for macro-evolution is viability. A partially-evolved organ or trait will not be helpful for survival. As scientist and creationist Dr. Walt Brown has said " ... if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing."

The sequence in DNA differs from individual to individual and from species to species. For an analogy, think of a library where all the books are in one language. In the library there are different books on different topics and subjects. All the books share the letters from the same alphabet, but the sequence in which these letters are arranged are different from book to book. The sequence of the letters makes the difference between a book on astronomy and a romance novel!

However, an amazing fact of biology is that every cell in your body, except for your reproductive cells, contains the complete information for the whole body. Yet not all the information in the DNA of your cells is allowed to be expressed or translated. For example, a cell from your hair also contains the complete genetic information for your eyes, brain, heart, liver, skin, and all the rest of the various organs and functions of your body (it's because of this that cloning an entire organism from any cell of the body is possible). However, in the hair cells of your body only the genetic information for your hair is allowed to be expressed, while all the other information is literally "blocked off" from being expressed or translated.

Of course, it is good for us that the cells in our bodies were designed this way; otherwise every cell in our bodies would also be everything else at the same time, which would create utter biological chaos. Truly, we may say with the Psalmist that "we are fearfully (or awesomely) and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14). Such biological precision in the cells of our bodies is still beyond the full comprehension of modern science. But the fact remains that the more we comprehend or understand the cell and how it functions, the more we must respect the wisdom behind its engineering and design.

When scientists study genes they are studying segments of the DNA molecule. The goal of the human genome project was to locate where the various genes are on the DNA. Only in this way can we begin to understand how to use genetic engineering to correct various genetically caused disorders and maladies. Faulty genes arise from mutations. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequence of the genetic code caused by radiation and other environmental forces. Most biological variations, however, are not due to mutations but, instead, are from new combinations of previously existing genes.

Because they are accidents in the genetic code, almost all mutations are harmful. Even if a good mutation does occur for every good one there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect over time being harmful, if not lethal, to the species as a whole.

Evolutionists hope that with enough time and with enough mutations entirely new genes for new traits will be produced which will be preserved by natural selection and which will lead to the evolution of new biological kinds. There is no evidence that this can happen from accidental changes in the sequence of the genetic code, anymore than it's possible to change a romance novel into a book on astronomy by accidentally changing the sequence of the letters.

At the very best mutations can only produce new varieties of already existing traits, but not entirely new traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change that gene so that another type of human hair develops but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop! Most biological variations are the result of new combinations of already existing genes and not mutations.

There is no evidence that random or chance mutations in the genetic code will produce more complex genes leading to more complex biological traits. It is true that natural selection occurs in nature, but natural selection itself does not produce biological variations. Natural selection is an entirely passive process in nature and can work only with biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection is simply another way of saying that if a biological variation occurs which is helpful to an animal or plant's survival then that variation will be preserved ("selected") and be passed on. Of course, nature does not do any active or conscious selecting. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. The important thing to remember is that natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value.

Furthermore, only those mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Mutations and any changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger it would not result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once-held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring.

No one has shown that DNA can come into existence by chance! It takes DNA to get DNA! In other words, there must already exist DNA to direct the formation of more DNA. Yes, it is true that the individual molecules that make up DNA have been shown to be able to come into existence by chance. But, it has never been shown that those individual molecules can come together into a sequence by chance to form the genetic code.

What about “Junk DNA”? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA” isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

Recently, scientists have shown certain molecules coming into existence by chance that can mimic DNA in some respects, but these molecules are not as complex as DNA and they cannot fulfill all of the functions that only DNA and RNA can perform. Showing that these other molecules can come into existence by chance is not the same as showing DNA can come into existence by chance! In fact, as it has already been noted, no scientist anywhere has ever shown that the DNA molecule can originate by chance.

The mathematical odds of the DNA of even the simplest form of life coming into existence by chance is comparable to a monkey typing the sequence of all the letters and words in a dictionary by randomly hitting keys on a computer keyboard or typewriter.

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

Life is far too complex to have happened by chance. Therefore, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between species are due to a common Designer rather than common ancestry through evolution. The Creator simply designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life from the simplest to the most complex.

Contrary to popular belief, scientists have never created life in the laboratory. What scientists have done is genetically alter or engineer already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life. However, they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it won't be by chance so it still wouldn't help support any theory for the chance or evolutionary origin of life.

In the case involving synthetic (artificial) life, scientists don't actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter. What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing living cell and, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life. And, again, even if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design. Synthetic life is another form of genetic engineering. But God was there first. Remember that!

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt-containing microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

"We think there's about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars", says (evolutionist) Kenneth Nealson. "You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth" [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12]. Furthermore, MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown (a creationist) in his book In The Beginning points out that during the great Genesis flood, as recorded in the Bible, the fountains of the deep that were let loose could have easily spewed out meteors and meteorites into space that very well may have contained micro-organisms such as bacteria.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own genetic programs and biological mechanisms. The question is how did life come about when there was no directing mechanism in Nature. An excellent article to read by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish is "A Few Reasons An Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible" (http://icr.org/article/3140/).

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is comparable to the probability of a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of people could come from the same human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair ( i.e. blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color (i.e. brown, green, and blue), but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color (i.e. brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring. Our bodies do not express every possible variation of the genes that we carry. One man having black hair may be carrying unexpressed genes for blond hair. Another man having black hair may not be carrying any unexpressed genes for different color hair. There are so many possibilities with genes and their combinations.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

What we believe about our origins influences and affects our attitude and philosophy toward life and how we view ourselves (our worth) and how we view others (their worth). This is no small issue!

Yes, natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

Just because science can explain how life and the universe work doesn't mean there is no ultimate Designer. Would it be rational to believe that there is no designer behind airplanes because science can explain how airplanes work?

We know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. It requires a beginning. But, we also know from science that natural laws could not have brought the universe into being from nothing. The beginning of the universe, therefore, points to a supernatural origin!

Belief in neither evolution nor creation is necessary to the actual study of science itself. One can study and understand how the human body works and become a first class surgeon regardless of whether he or she believes the human body is the result of the chance forces of Nature or of a Supreme Designer.

Science cannot prove that we are here by chance (evolution) or by design (creation). However, the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other. If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools, which receive funding from taxpayers, who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state. As a religion and science writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at my website http://www.religionscience.com for a more in-depth study of the issue of origins and intelligent design.

An excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) in San Diego, California. Also, the reader may find answers to many difficult questions concerning the Bible (including questions on creation and evolution, Noah's Ark, how dinosaurs fit into the Bible, etc.) at http://www.ChristianAnswers.net.

MIT scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues (i.e. fossils, "transitional" links, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc.) at greater depth on his website at http://www.creationscience.com.

Protect Your Body With Colloidal Silver!

2010-04-03T16:07:00.001-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

The best defense against swine flu, or any flu, is the age old remedy of colloidal silver. The metal silver in its colloidal state can be safely consumed and used in the body. Bacteria and viruses cannot develop resistance to colloidal silver. Silver disables a vital enzyme and mechanism in all bacteria and pathogens so that they cannot survive. It is good to take a few teaspoons of colloidal silver daily to maintain health. More colloidal silver should be taken if experiencing illness.

Colloidal silver was used by the medical profession well into the 1930's. However, it was expensive to produce and afford, especially at that time, and pharmaceutical companies invented alternatives (i.e. anti-biotics) to colloidal silver which were cheaper to make and sell. However, now many germs have developed immunity and resistance to anti-biotics.

The CDC has recently said that anti-viral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza are effective against swine flu, but even these drugs may soon become obsolete if the virus develops resistance. The virus, however, has no ability to resist the disabling power of silver.

Even developing a successful vaccine against the virus may become obsolete should the virus substantially mutate. Colloidal silver, very simply, is a natural and irresistible remedy to any flu virus, germ, bacterium, and disease causing pathogen.

Even the FDA has approved the production and sale of colloidal silver as an anti-microbial so long as the colloidal silver is produced in the same manner as it was back in the 1930's and earlier. Unfortunately, there is just too much money and economics tied to the present production and sale of synthetic anti-viral and anti-biotic medications made by pharmaceutical companies for medical doctors, hospitals, and even government to recommend colloidal silver as an alternative to the public. Many modern health professionals have never even heard of colloidal silver!

If you do take colloidal silver make sure you also consume yogurt on a regular basis because the colloidal silver will also destroy the good bacteria in the intestines. There are various companies making colloidal silver and the quality of the colloidal silver may differ from company to company. I do not have a business interest or connection with any company making or selling colloidal silver, but I am personally using colloidal silver from Utopia Silver. Their website may be accessed at: www.utopiasilver.com.

The best article I have read on the subject of colloidal silver may be accessed at: http://www.all-natural.com/silver-1.html. This site is very informative about colloidal silver and how and when to take it.

Indian Christians Desperately Need Your Help!

2010-04-03T16:05:00.002-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

I was born into an upper caste Hindu family. I arrived in the U.S. with my family at the young age of six. At the age of fourteen, the Holy Spirit brought me to saving faith in Christ through the television-preaching ministry of Billy Graham. Indian Christians are suffering big time now in India. Hindu fundamentalism is sweeping over India. Although according to India's Constitution there is supposed to be freedom of religion, millions of low caste Hindus converting to Christianity are being harassed and persecuted like never before. The upper caste Hindus could care less (too busy making money in the great global economy) and police and politicians look the other way.

India has a total population of more than one billion people. Hindus in India belong to five major castes, the last one being the "Untouchable" Caste (also known as Dalits). The "Untouchable" Caste in India has perhaps two hundred million people. That's as much as two-thirds of the entire U.S. population! These people are treated as the scum of Indian society. They must do the dirtiest work and live in the worst conditions. They live segregated from the rest of the Hindus who believe they'll become spiritually polluted by coming near or even touching an "untouchable". Jim Crow is alive and well in India! "Untouchables" must use separate well waters, especially in the rural areas, or risk being maimed or even killed.

Why is all this so? The Hindu religion teaches reincarnation. According to the Hindu religion the "untouchables" were born in their low caste because of big sins committed in their previous lives. Millions of untouchables believe they have no right to resist or change things because they believe they deserve the sub-human conditions in which they were born.

When "untouchables" hear the Christian Gospel and realize that Jesus Christ paid for all their sins through the shedding of His blood and death on the Cross and that He rose victoriously from the grave and that they can have immediate and full forgiveness of their sins now by putting their faith in Christ it becomes a powerful message to them, and many, through the Holy Spirit's power, eventually do convert (not because of some sins in a supposed past life that they don't remember but because of the sins that they know and commit now.

When this happens many upper caste Hindus persecute the "untouchables". They say the "untouchables" only converted from Hinduism to escape their sub-human conditions. These "untouchables" have no money. They can't afford lawyers. The "untouchables" are given heavy fines for converting and many are being beaten, tortured, and imprisoned. Whole families are beaten and there's no medical care for these poor people. No one will care for them. Many even die.

I encourage American Christians to support Gospel for Asia Ministries. One hundred percent of your money goes to the field (no administrative expenditures). GFA is helping scores of "untouchables" and other Hindus in India to come to Christ and GFA helps them with their physical needs as well.

Some have argued that these are not true conversions, that the "untouchables" are converting to Christianity in order to escape the Hindu caste system. But, if that were the case these Hindus could easily have converted to the Muslim religion (Islam) in order to escape the caste system, and the far greater number of Muslims in India (some 150 million) would have provided them far greater protection from Hindu persecution than the much smaller and politically weaker Christian population.

Many of these conversions to Christianity are true and real and the Indian government is not doing anything substantial to protect "untouchables" converting to Christianity from severe persecution by Hindus. Hindu fundamentalists are now in control of many local governments in India, and even the central government in India was under Hindu fundamentalist control until recently.

GFA provides assistance and help without conditions. People are not required to convert before receiving help! But, many who do receive help eventually come to receive Christ into their lives because of the love and Gospel message shared by the GFA pastors and missionaries.

Some of the ways in which GFA helps is by providing tools or farm animals to the poor in the countryside so that they'll be able to earn their own living. A family may receive a cow and sell the milk produced to pay for rent and put food on the table. Another family may receive a manually-cranked sewing machine to make clothes to sell.

Listen, folks, one American dollar in India can do for a person there what forty American dollars can do for someone here in America. Thirty or forty American dollars a month can fully support a missionary in India. Just forty American dollars a month can provide shelter, transportation, three square meals a day, clothes, shoes, medicine for a missionary in India. Imagine what more can do!

Please contact GFA now at: http://www.gfa.org/.

Black Race NOT Related To Apes!

2010-04-03T16:04:00.005-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Recently a photo of the First Lady, Michelle Obama, was doctored up on an Internet site "Hot Girls" so that she appeared to have ape-like features. This is a horrible and offensive photo. We need to have a conversation on this topic now. Not long ago a team of psychologists from Stanford, Penn State, and UC Berkeley have reported that blacks are likely to be thought of by other races as being sub-human and associated with apes: http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/discrimination-against-blacks-linked-dehumanization. Let's admit it! Many people, even blacks themselves, wonder whether black people are more closely related to apes because of certain facial features or other similarities. This issue needs to be dealt with in the open and honestly.

Well, let me ask this question. Are bull dogs more closely related to cats because they have flat faces and short legs? Obviously not! A bull dog can be crossed with other dogs but not a cat! Neither are blacks more closely related to apes! There are monkeys which have some very fine features and skin complexion resembling those of white people (Do a google image search for "Snow Monkeys" and see for yourself). Does that mean whites are more closely related to these monkeys? Of course not!

Doesn't the Bible teach that Ham, the ancestor of the Black race, was cursed? No! The Bible teaches that the curse was on Canaan who was only one of the sons of Ham. The curse was not on Ham himself. The Canaanites were finally destroyed as a civilization long, long ago.

In fact, the word "Ham" means black. Noah named one of his sons "Ham" because he was born black. This was before there was any curse by Noah. Ham was born black before there was any curse! Black skin is not a curse and science shows that it protects from harmful, cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation from the Sun in tropical climate and weather. It's a blessing, not a curse. Only figuratively speaking are "black" and "white" considered as "good" and "evil". Physical blackness and physical whiteness have nothing to do with good and evil. Do you kick your dog because it's black? Do you stop eating dark chocolate because it's black?

Ultimately, all life forms on earth share varying similarities because of a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various species and life forms on Earth.

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties or "races" of people could come from the same original human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair ( i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue ) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown ). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

In reality there is only one race - the human race - within which exists myriad variations and permutations. Just as you can get a pure bred from a mutt but not a mutt from a pure bred, so too all varieties of humans were able to come from Adam and Eve our first parents.

There are many genetic and biological similarities between various species. This does not necessarily mean that all life evolved from a common ancestor. A better explanation is that the similarities are due to a common Designer (God) who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information cannot happen by chance anymore than other forms of information can happen by chance. Science can't prove it but science can and does point to God as the first Genetic Engineer! It's only logical, dear Watson.

All varieties of humans belong to one natural species since all varieties of human beings are inter-fertile, and this is biological proof that we are all descendants of a common human ancestor. This is why the Bible says that God "hath made of one all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth ..." (Acts 17:26, KJV). The Bible clearly teaches that God created all human beings in His image. Therefore, as one of my former pastors, Dr. Carl E. Abrahamsen, Jr., so truthfully and eloquently stated, to hate a fellow human being who has been created in the image of God because of the way he or she looks is a great and serious sin and offense against God which needs to be confessed and repented of before the Almighty.

What's Scientific About Intelligent Design?

2010-04-03T16:02:00.004-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

The scientific method is used every day in forensic science to determine whether an event in a crime scene was an accident or by design and intention. Mathematical probability is a scientific argument and is frequently used in determining many issues of scientific inquiry.

The scientific method cannot be used to prove events which occurred outside of human observation. No one observed the origin of the universe by either chance or design, but scientific evidence via mathematical probability can be used to support either a chance or design origins for the universe.

If you went to an uninhabited planet and discovered only one thing, a cliff carved with images of persons similar to what we find on Mt. Rushmore, you cannot use the scientific method to prove that these images came about by design or by chance processes of erosion.

Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.

The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 65th power. That's just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them.

Protein molecules are made of smaller molecules known as amino acids. In order for a protein molecule to work the amino acids have to be together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. If they are not in the right sequence then the protein molecule won't work.

It has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acid molecules, can come into existence by chance, but it has never been shown that these basic building blocks can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

Once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic code (or program) and biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own DNA and protein molecules. The problem is how did DNA, proteins, and life come about when there was no already existing directing code and mechanisms in nature.

It seems that the cell is irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

An amazing fact is that there are left-handed and right-handed amino acids. In life all the protein molecules have to be made up of left-handed amino acids as well as be in the right sequence. If a right-handed amino acid gets into the mix the protein won't work.

DNA, the genetic code, also is made up of various smaller molecules (nucleic acids) that have to be together in a precise sequence in order for the DNA to work. There are left-handed and right-handed sugar molecules making-up nucleic acids. In order to get a working DNA molecule the various nucleic acids have to be not only in a precise sequence but they also have to contain only right-handed sugar molecules. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then the DNA won't work.

What about “Junk DNA”? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA” isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

The great and well-known British scientist Frederick Hoyle showed that the probability of the simplest form of life coming into being by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power. You don't have to be a theologian to respect such numbers!

In the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.

All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

What about natural selection? Natural selection cannot produce anything. It can only "select" from what is produced. Furthermore, natural selection can only operate once there is life and reproduction and not before. Natural selection is a passive process in nature.

Even the recent news of artificial life is not creation of any life. In artificial life, scientists, through intelligent design, build a DNA molecule from "scratch" and then implant that DNA into an already living cell. Genetic engineering and artificial life projects all happen by intelligent design - not by chance. Just ask the scientists behind the projects!

Science cannot prove that we are here by either chance or design, but the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other.

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory. No one is being forced to believe in God so there's no real violation of separation of church and state.

But, when all the evidence is presented it should show beyond all reasonable doubt that life didn't originate by chance but by design.

The Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) offers excellent articles, books, and resources from Master's or Ph.D degreed scientists showing how true science supports creation.

Science and The Origin of Life

2010-04-03T16:01:00.008-04:00

The news is that scientists have created the first cell controlled entirely by man-made genetic instructions. First thing to understand is that these genetic instructions did not come into existence by chance but by intelligent design. Second, scientists didn't create life but what they did is implant their man-made genetic instructions into an already existing living cell. All this happened by using intelligence, not chance. All of this is, in a very small way, nothing more than copying God, the original Intelligence and Source behind life. Even if scientists ever create life from scratch it won't be by chance.

Millions of high school and college biology textbooks imply that Stanley Miller, in the 1950's, showed that life could arise by chance. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that individual amino acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by chance. But, it's not enough just to have amino acids. The various amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning protein molecules. If they're not in the right sequence the protein molecules won't work. It has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules.

Also, what many don't realize is that Miller had a laboratory apparatus that shielded and protected the individual amino acids the moment they were formed, otherwise the amino acids would have quickly disintegrated and been destroyed in the mix of random energy and forces involved in Miller's experiment.

There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already existing sequence of molecules found in our genetic code.

In nature there are what scientists call right-handed and left-handed amino acids. However, life requires that all proteins be left-handed. So, not only do millions of amino acids have to be in the correct sequence, they also all have to be left-handed. If a right-handed amino acid gets mixed in then the protein molecules won't function. There won't be any life!

Similarly, the nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be in a precise sequence. The sugar molecules that make-up the various nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be right-handed. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then nothing will work.

What about “Junk DNA”? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA” isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane. And even having a complete cell doesn't necessarily mean there will be life. After all, even a dead cell is complete shortly after it dies!

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic code and other biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The question is how could life have arisen naturally when there was no energy-converting and directing mechanism at all in nature.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

The cell seems to be irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

Thanks to evolution's popular high priests and evangelist writers such as Richard Dawkins, many in society have come to believe that natural selection will solve all of evolution's problems.

Natural selection cannot produce anything. It can only "select" from what is produced. It is a passive process in nature. If some life form develops a feature that helps it survive we say it was "selected". That's natural selection. It's another term for "survival of the fittest". It's not a conscious or actively producing force. Furthermore, natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction and not before.

There are natural limits to evolution or biological change in nature which not even mutations are capable of over-coming, especially considering that mutations are accidental changes in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces like radiation. Most biological changes are not because of true mutations but because of new combinations of already existing genes.

Since chance processes do not produce genetic information, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between various forms of life are because of a common Genetic Engineer or Designer (God) Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various species and forms of life.

In the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.

All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. And, as mentioned, even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.

Again, the recent news of artificial life is not creation of any life. In artificial life, scientists, through intelligent design, build a DNA molecule from "scratch" and then implant that DNA into an already living cell. Genetic engineering and artificial life projects all happen by intelligent design - not by chance. Just ask the scientists behind the projects!

Science cannot prove that we are here by either chance or design, but the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other.

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory. No one is being forced to believe in God so there's no real violation of separation of church and state.

But, when all the evidence is presented it should show beyond all reasonable doubt that life didn't originate by chance but by design.

The Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) offers excellent articles, books, and resources from Master's or Ph.D degreed scientists showing how true science supports creation.

Treasure of Good Health At Walmart

2010-04-03T16:01:00.002-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Walmart stores carry aloe vera in gallon jugs at a very affordable price. Food really is the best medicine! For thousands of years, in all sorts of cultures, aloe vera has been successfully used for all sorts of ailments. Walmart uses the best part of the aloe vera plant and their aloe vera plants are all organically grown.

Modern science shows that aloe vera, a desert plant, contains many vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients. Taking aloe vera on a regular basis can help prevent serious disease and, as mentioned already, can help the body to heal from various ailments and diseases including cancer. The proof is in the thousands of individuals who have experienced the benefits of aloe vera over the centuries.

Aloe vera is food so it shouldn't interfere with any prescription medication an individual is already taking. Find out first if you're allergic to aloe vera. Rub some on your skin. If your skin doesn't break out then go ahead and start off with a 4 oz. glass every day. If you have a medical condition consider taking two or three 4 oz. glasses a day.

The taste is not good so consider using honey, orange juice, apple juice, whatever sweetener you like to make it easier for you to drink the juice. Sweetening the juice will not lessen its effectiveness. The benefits of the juice gets will get into your system whether or not you sweeten the juice.

I personally know of someone at work who had very high blood pressure. She took three 4 oz. glasses of aloe vera for one month and her blood pressure returned completely back to normal. Now that her blood pressure is back to normal normal, she is taking only one 4oz glass of aloe vera juice daily to maintain her health. Aloe vera won't cause side effects like many prescription medicines. And because aloe vera is all food you can safely take it with prescription medication.

Below is an interesting link to an article about aloe vera and its benefits. For pennies a day you can be healthy or regain your health.

There is no money to made by the medical profession or hospitals by giving patients aloe vera or any other natural remedy. The drug companies hold medical doctors and hospitals in their hands. Prescription medication is a multi-billion dollar money-making machine. Yes, some prescriptions are good. I am not saying all prescription medications are bad.

Many research scientists at major public universities continually report how foods in nature can help prevent or heal diseases. This information, for the most part, doesn't get taught in medical schools, particularly in the United States. There is a big disconnect between university research scientists and the medical profession, again, especially in the United States.

God may very well have put within aloe vera everything the body needs for good health. All medicine is from chemicals. You have the choice between taking God's chemicals in nature or man's chemicals from the laboratory.

Conservative Theologian No Longer Believes Eternal Torment

2010-04-03T16:00:00.008-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Although I am a conservative Christian (Reformed Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches or supports the traditional view of hell with its doctrine of eternal torment or suffering.

The Bible does teach eternal punishment, but that eternal punishment ultimately is not eternal suffering.

Although, the wicked in hell, for a period, will suffer consciously for their individual sins, the ultimate penalty for sin itself will be the eternal death (literal death) of soul and body and the eternal loss to immortality. That is what the Bible means by their eternal punishment. It is not the punishing that is eternal but, rather, the punishment.

God's righteous wrath is not an end in itself but a means to an end - that end being the eternal (literal) destruction of the wicked. Neither will God allow sin to exist for eternity by keeping sinners alive for eternity in hell. Neither is eternal torment necessary for God to satisfy His eternal justice.

But, what about those passages in the Bible which say that the wicked will go into "eternal fire" and that in hell there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth forever and ever," and other similar passages that seem to teach eternal torment? We shall examine, in this article, those and other passages from the Bible in the light of the context of Scripture and by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

Few in society realize just how much ancient Greek philosophy influenced early Christian thought on hell.

The ancient Greeks believed and taught that the human soul is immortal and indestructible. When early Christianity adopted this belief then it became only logical to believe that those who go to hell must suffer eternal torment.

More than anyone else, the early Church bishop Augustine influenced early Christianity's adoption of this ancient Greek belief about the nature of the soul. Augustine was a great admirer and follower of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato even after converting to Christianity. It was Plato who systematically formulated ancient Greek belief and thought concerning the nature of the human soul.

The Bible, however, teaches that man by nature is completely mortal and that immortality is a gift of God to be realized only on Resurrection Day for those who have put their faith and trust in God's Son Jesus Christ for salvation because Christ's death on the Cross fully paid for our sins and His resurrection from the grave is the guarantee of future immortality for all who believe in Him.

Interestingly, even Adam and Eve were not created as immortal from the beginning. That is why there was placed the Tree of Life in the midst of the Garden of Eden.

If pain is necessary for punishment then why do some societies have the death penalty? When a murderer is put to death he no longer feels pain. If he did then he wouldn't be dead. One thing for sure is that a murderer put to death by society no longer feels any pain from society. Does that then mean that society has not punished him since he no longer feels any more pain from society?

In Genesis 2:17 God told Adam not to eat the fruit of a certain tree (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) and God also told Adam that if he did eat of it he would die on that very day. Specifically, God said to Adam, "For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." But the Biblical record shows that Adam did not physically die on the very day he disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit. Because Adam did not physically die on the very day that he disobeyed God most Christians believe that God was referring to spiritual death and not physical death.

However, in the original Hebrew, in which the Old Testament was written, the grammatical tense of the word "die" in Genesis 2:17 is in the imperfect mood. The imperfect mood denotes a process. Thus, what God was actually saying to Adam is that he would start dying on the day he ate the forbidden fruit. The literal translation from the Hebrew of what God said to Adam is: "Dying you will die." God was not, therefore, referring to spiritual death but to physical death. The fact that God later prevented Adam and Eve from having access to the tree of life (Genesis 3:22-24) so that they would not live eternally in sin proves that God was referring to physical death and not spiritual death.

There are good Scriptural reasons to believe that the soul also is physical but distinct from the rest of the body, but that is another subject. Whether physical or not physical, man's soul, along with the rest of man, was created completely mortal and that is the primary point being addressed here.

The penalty for sin, then, is the death of both soul and body so that man will not live forever in sin. Not only is God not cruel in His eternal justice, but a holy God will not allow His moral creatures to exist eternally in sin. God will not immortalize sin and evil by making the wicked in hell immortal! All of this contradicts the traditional doctrine and teaching, taught in most churches, about the wicked having an immortal soul and body in hell.

What about "eternal fire", "unquenchable fire", "weeping and gnashing of teeth forever and ever", the account by Jesus about the Rich Man and Lazarus, and other similar passages in the Bible that seem to teach eternal torment? The key, in many cases, is in understanding the context in which these and other similar phrases are used in various parts of Scripture.

For example, figures of speech such as "unquenchable fire" are used in the Bible to mean that the process of destruction is unstoppable or irreversible. We see an example of this in the Old Testament book of Ezekiel 20:47-48 where God says that when His judgment comes on the land even every green tree will burn and that the fire "will not be quenched". Obviously, those trees are not still burning. It is important to understand just why God uses such terms in Scripture as "unquenchable fire".

In the Bible, there were some judgments of God in which His wrath was quenched or stopped such as in the case when Moses interceded and pleaded before God for the rebellious Israelites in the desert. When Moses did this God stopped or quenched His wrath against the rebellious Israelites. Thus, when God says, in Scripture, that the wicked in the end will be destroyed with unquenchable fire what He simply means is that nothing can intervene to prevent Him from carrying out His wrath fully through to its completion. Over and over in the Scriptures God is described in judgment as being a consuming fire. God's righteous wrath in judgment is not an end in itself but a means to an end.

Unlike the burning bush in Exodus that Moses observed was not consumed by the fire but was preserved by God, the Scriptures teach that God, in the end, will not preserve the wicked in the fire of hell but instead will completely consume and destroy them!

Contrary to popular belief and interpretation, the phrase in Scripture "where their worm dieth not" is not a reference to the undying human soul or conscience. We have already seen statements in Scripture that God will destroy, not preserve or keep alive, the bodies and souls of the wicked in the Day of Judgment. The worm and fire were figures that people in Jesus' time could readily identify and understand because in that time the dead bodies of those who suffered dishonor in society were all commonly thrown into a certain valley where fire and worms devoured these bodies. Jesus simply seeks to convey, in figurative language, that in hell (gehenna) neither the fire nor the worm will cease until the wicked are totally consumed or destroyed!

The word "forever" is another example. In Scripture the word "forever" does not always mean endless or eternal duration. For example, in Exodus 21:6 (KJV Version) we read that certain people were to be servants "forever". Obviously this cannot mean eternity. The word "forever" or "everlasting", in the original Hebrew and Greek languages of Scripture, simply means the entire length or duration of something. If that something is immortal then the word "forever" must mean eternity. But, if that something is mortal or temporary in nature then, obviously, the word "forever" cannot mean eternity.

Thus, when the Bible teaches hell as being "forever" it cannot mean eternity because the same Bible teaches that those who go to hell are mortal and will be totally consumed or destroyed. The word "forever" in this case must mean the entire length that the wicked suffer consciously for their individual sins before they are finally and eternally destroyed. Hell is not eternal but the result produced by hell is eternal!

Scripture says in Jude 7 that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by eternal fire. These cities are no longer still burning. How, then, can the fire be called "eternal"? Because the result that the fire produced is eternal - these cities have never existed again, nor will they.

When the Bible talks about eternal judgment, or eternal damnation, or eternal destruction, it’s in reference to the result and not the process! It is not the punishing that is eternal but, rather, the punishment! It is not the destroying that is eternal but, rather, the destruction! It is not the dying that is eternal but, rather, the death. Just as eternal redemption in the Bible doesn’t mean that the process of redeeming is eternal but, rather, the result (no one would be saved if the process of redeeming were eternal) so, too, the eternal judgment of the wicked doesn’t mean that their judging is eternal but, rather, their judgment (the result) is what's eternal!

The context of Holy Scripture teaches that the eternal punishment of the wicked is ultimately their eternal annihilation and not eternal torment or suffering as the traditional doctrine of hell teaches. As one preacher has put it: "Eternal punishment is the eternal loss of life not an eternal life of loss".

Eternal life in Scripture has the same meaning as immortality (i.e. Romans 2:7) which Christians will possess only in the future on Resurrection Day. Various Scripture passages teach immortality and eternal life to be a future possession for Christians. Why then did Jesus use the present tense when saying those who believe in Him have eternal life? The answer is that sometimes in the Bible the present tense is used to describe future events for the purpose of demonstrating their certainty. Scripture says God "calleth those things which be not as though they were" (Romans 4:17).

The Bible says Jesus Christ "hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10). The opposite of eternal life (or immortality) is eternal death (the eternal and literal death of soul and body) - not eternally living in torment and suffering! "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23). "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting (eternal) life" (John 3:16). The issue is not what we think eternal punishment ought to be. The issues are God's character, God's definition of ultimate justice, and God's eternal purposes.

Some have argued that because man was created in the image of God then all humans must possess an immortal soul. However, being created in the image of God doesn't necessarily mean that we must possess every attribute or even possible attribute that God possess. For example, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent - but we are not. The Bible is clear that immortality is an attribute that will be given only on Resurrection Day for those who have put their trust in Christ for salvation.

We must base our views of hell and the after life on what the Bible teaches, not on tradition or mere human philosophies and opinions. We must not impose our philosophy of what God ought to be upon Holy Scripture! Not many people realize the fact that in the New Testament there are different Greek words for the word "hell." But unfortunately the English Bible translates these different words for hell as one word, and this has been a cause of much confusion for those who wish to study the subject. The New Testament Greek words for hell are "Hades" and "Gehenna" and they both have different meanings. Hades means the unseen world of the dead and is only a temporary abode. It has nothing to do with punishment or reward. It is equivalent to the Hebrew word "Sheol" in the Old Testament in its meaning. Gehenna, on the other hand, is the abode of eternal punishment of the wicked.

Scripture teaches that both the wicked and righteous will be resurrected, but only the righteous (in and through Christ’s redemptive work) will obtain immortal bodies. The wicked will not inherit immortal bodies. They will be judged for their sins and in hell will suffer consciously for their individual sins before they are eternally destroyed in body and soul.

The Bible is clear that before the resurrection there is no consciousness of the souls who are said to be in Hades. There are some Scripture verses that seem to teach consciousness after death and before the resurrection, but, when studied in the context of Scripture, it will be seen that it is not so. Didn’t the repentant thief on the Cross be Jesus in Paradise that very day he died? What about when the Apostle Paul says in Scripture “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”? The answers to these, and other similar passages, are found in my larger article on the subject “The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell” at: http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-vs-traditional-view-of-hell.html.

The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16 has often been used by many Christians, especially preachers, as a depiction of the punishment that the wicked will suffer in hell. But this is not the case. In the first place when Jesus refers to the Rich Man being in torment in the flame of hell the Greek word for "hell" in the passage is not "Gehenna" (the place of final and eternal punishment), but rather it is the Greek word "Hades" (which in Scripture is the temporary abode of the dead). The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, like the other series of parables before it, was used of the Lord to illustrate or depict the end of the rule of the Pharisees and to depict the end of the Jewish Era and dispensation (as represented by the Rich Man being in torment) and it was also used of the Lord to depict or illustrate the elevation of Gentile Christendom (as represented by Lazarus). Actually, Lazarus represented the poor Jews of Jesus' time who were ignored by the self-righteous religious leaders of Israel and he also represented the gentiles who, although rejected by the Jewish leaders, would nevertheless be accepted into the bosom of Abraham through their new found faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. The religious leaders of Israel had lived only for themselves and ignored the spiritual needs of the spiritually sick and starving people around them.

The concept that Hades was a place divided into two compartments, one of suffering for the wicked and the other of bliss for the righteous, was a Jewish belief that had developed during the Intertestamental period, the period of time in between when the Old and New Testaments were written. Thus, this particular view of Hades was not canonical, that is it was not something that God Himself had revealed to the Jews through Scripture. There is no evidence in Scripture that Hades is a place where the wicked suffer while awaiting their final and permanent judgment in Gehenna. Such a concept of Hades developed as a result of ancient Greek influences on Jewish thinking about the nature of the soul. In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus was simply borrowing this popular Jewish folklore of Hades to use as an illustration to make a point to the Pharisees and religious leaders of His day, but He was not necessarily endorsing the folklore as being doctrinally valid or correct. There are various passages in the Old Testament, such as in Psalms, that tell us that there is no consciousness in Sheol (the Hebrew equivalent of Hades in the Old Testament).

Some argue that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not a parable because Jesus did not formally introduce it as a parable. But, Jesus did not always formally introduce His stories as parables, and there are various examples of that in the Gospels. Now, it is true that in His parables Jesus used things that actually existed to fill in for illustrations and figures, but in the particular case of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus the Lord used a popular existing Jewish myth about Hades for the purposes of constructing a story. Jesus simply used the Pharisees' own superstitious belief about Hades against them!

Why didn't Jesus rebuke the pharisees' belief about Hades as being wrong? Jesus didn't go around always rebuking every wrong doctrine. For example, in Jesus' time it was a common Jewish belief (from the influence of Greek philosophy) that souls could commit individual sins before birth. That is why we read in John 9:1-3 that Jesus' disciples believed a certain man was born blind because he may have committed some great sin before his physical conception in the womb. Jesus didn't respond by telling His disciples that such a belief is doctrinally wrong but instead healed the blind man.

A very important question arises that needs to be answered. If Jesus Christ was truly God how then could He completely die (in body and soul) since the Scriptures teach that God is immutable (unchanging). In answer to this question it is important to understand that everything about God, including His immutability and His very existence itself, is dependent upon His moral nature. God's immutability is conditional upon His moral nature. In fact, it would be theologically safe to say that the only thing about God that cannot change at all is His moral nature. Thus, it is only God's moral nature which is truly unconditionally immutable. In the context of Scripture, when God says "I am the Lord. I change not" (Malachi 3:6) it is in reference to His moral being and nature. Whatever God can do or cannot do is governed by His moral constitution or nature. For example, the Scripture says in Hebrews 6:18 that it is impossible for God to lie. Thus, when Scripture tells us elsewhere that with God all things are possible it must be understood from the context of comparing Scripture with Scripture that only all things are possible with God which are not contradictory to His moral nature. In other words, God is only as immutable as His moral nature allows Him to be. What does all this mean? It means that when God the Son (Jesus Christ) took the legal guilt and liability for our sins on the Cross then His divine moral nature required that He die since the penalty for sin is death. As He had to be true to His moral nature the Son gave up His life. It is precisely because of the immutability of His moral nature that Christ (Who is God) died when He took the guilt of our sins! Because He was God Christ's death had infinite value so that it was not necessary for Him to remain dead for eternity in order for His death to satisfy the full penalty for our sins.

If Jesus was truly God and He died completely (in both body and soul), how then could He have raised His own body from the grave as He said He would. There are two possible answers. One is that when His soul was given back its life Christ then entered His own body and raised it up from the grave. The other possible answer is in understanding what Jesus said about His authority over His own life and death. Jesus said that the Father had given to Him authority to lay down His life and to have His life raised from the dead (John 10:11-18). Shortly before Jesus died He exercised this authority by entrusting to His Father His spirit (not the Holy Spirit in this case but rather the spirit which is the principle of life, the breath of life). Remember His words on the Cross, "Father into Thy hands I commend My spirit" (Luke 23:46). By doing this He gave authority for death to overtake Him on account of our sins for which He died but He also had delegated His right and authority over His own life to the Father to raise Him up from the dead. In this way Jesus was very much responsible for both His own death and resurrection. What great love and condescension the Son of God subjected Himself to on our behalf! The reader is urged to examine in more detail the Biblical fact of Christ's Godhood and deity in the author's essay The Deity of Jesus Christ Explained and Defended.

By no means is all of this new teaching. A minority of Christians, of various denominations, have held to this view of hell throughout the centuries. Even some very prominent Christians of the past have held to this view and there are a number (albeit a minority) of Christian theologians and scholars in the present who hold to this view. However, this view on hell, unfortunately, is known so little outside the Christian community and even inside the Christian community for that matter.

Many of the early Protestant Reformers, including Martin Luther, held to the view that man, by nature, is entirely mortal (including the soul), but the great Reformer John Calvin opposed this view and specifically wrote against it and insisted that all of the Reformers present a united front. An excellent Internet site containing information on all of this is "Champions of Conditional Immortality In History".

I highly recommend to all readers Dr. Edward Fudge's thoroughly biblical and scholarly work "The Fire That Consumes". The book is foreworded by the great evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce. This book should be required reading in every seminary and Bible school!

I encourage all to read my larger article "The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell" for more comprehensive and in-depth coverage of this subject. Other questions and arguments, not raised here, are answered thoroughly in my larger article. I also hope that this information will shed new light in reading the New Testament, particularly the Gospels.

Early Christianity Before The Papacy

2010-04-03T15:59:00.002-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Recently the Pope announced that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church and that there is no salvation outside of Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is the infallible spiritual head and Vicar of Christ on earth.

Before examining the Pope's statements, let us define what the word "church" means. The word "church" comes from the Greek New Testament word "ekklesia" which means people who have been "called out". All those who have put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ for salvation and forgiveness of sins are considered in the New Testament as being spiritually "called out" from the world. They are in the world but not of the world. Their spiritual citizenship now is in heaven.

The church, therefore, is not a building. It is not a building that has been "called out". The church is the body of all true believers in Jesus Christ as the Son of God Who died and shed His blood on the Cross to pay for our sins and Who bodily rose from the grave. All Christians belong spiritually to one true Church which is the spiritual body of Christ, regardless of denomination or differences in local church governments. The Apostle Paul, in the New Testament, says that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians4:5).

The one baptism that all Christians share is a spiritual baptism performed by the Holy Spirit when an individual puts his or her personal faith and trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. The Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...and have been all made to drink into one Spirit". This is spiritual baptism of which physical baptism by water is a symbolic picture. When Christians are physically baptized by water it is done through a human agency. But the baptism that the Apostle Paul talks about here in 1 Corinthians 12:13is done specifically by God the Holy Spirit. It is entirely spiritual and not physical at all.

But, didn’t Jesus say in John 3:5 that a person must be born of both “water and of the Spirit” to be born again? We must understand what Jesus meant by “water” by looking at what other Scriptures say on the same subject. In Ephesians 5:26 the Bible says that Christians are washed by the water of the Word. This is in reference to Scripture or the truth of Scripture cleansing Christians. In Titus 3:5 we read about the “washing of regeneration” which we know is accomplished by the Spirit using the Word or the truth found in God’s Word. 1 Peter 1:23 says that we are “born again” by the Word of God. Thus, in John 3:5 Jesus was not talking about physical water. Jesus emphasizes in John 3:6 that it is not by anything physical we are born again.

In the first few centuries after Christ there was no Roman Catholic Church. There was a catholic church but not a Roman Catholic Church. The word "catholic" simply means universal. In the time of the Roman Empire there were various locally governed and administered churches. For example, there was the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Rome, the Church of Antioch, the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Corinth, etc. Each of these churches was ruled separately by their own bishops. The bishop of one church had no authority over the bishop of another church. But the Christians in all these churches considered themselves to be one spiritually even though they were governed separately.

The Christians in these various churches did not see "eye-to-eye' on every doctrine. They differed on matters of secondary doctrine, as Christians do today, but they all were in agreement with the primary (essential) doctrines concerning the Deity and Person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His payment for our sins on the Cross and His bodily resurrection from the grave.

Because Rome was politically the center of the Roman Empire and because of the important political events occurring there, the bishop of the Church of Rome eventually began to have greater and greater influence over the bishops of other churches in the Roman Empire. Eventually in the 5th century the bishop of the Church of Rome was recognized as having supreme authority over all of the other bishops of the other churches and there became to be organized for the first time the Roman Catholic Church.

Christians who are Roman Catholic believe that Christ made the Apostle Peter the first pope and that all other popes come from the line of Peter. Even if Christ had made Peter the first pope it doesn't necessarily mean that Peter would have successors. As the great preacher John Gill noted, the New Testament (i.e., Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 21:14)describes Peter equally with the other apostles as being a foundation in "laying doctrinally and ministerially Christ Jesus as the foundation of faith and hope" but it is clear in the New Testament that the twelve apostles were not a foundation in the unique sense that Christ Himself is of the Church. A careful reading of the New Testament shows that the Apostle Peter had no more authority than the other apostles. All of the original twelve apostles had equally the same spiritual authority. There were no successors to the apostles, including Peter!

The passage from the New Testament that is often cited by Roman Catholics is Matthew 16: 18 where Jesus says to Peter "Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church..." It is important to remember that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. The Greek is a very precise language. Even though Christ Himself spoke in the Aramaic language to His disciples what He meant was translated into Greek by His disciples, so we must go to the Greek to get an understanding of what Christ meant.

In the particular passage of Matthew 16:18 the Greek word for "Peter" (petros) means a "small stone" or "small rock" but the Greek word for "rock" (petra) means a "huge unmovable portion of earth" or "cliff". Peter could not be both! Peter was the small stone. In fact, the Apostle Peter in Scripture calls other Christians as fellow stones (1 Peter 2:5) which together are built into the spiritual house of God (the Church). In calling Peter "a small stone" Christ was using Peter, in one sense, as a picture of what all Christians are. The "rock" (petra) that Christ said He would build His Church on is either Christ Himself or the truth of the statement that Peter had just made about Christ. Peter had just finished saying in Matthew 16:16 to Jesus "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God". It is probably the truth of this statement that Christ referred to as the "rock" on which he would build His church.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that in the communion of the bread and wine we are literally eating the body and blood of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that at some point in the ceremony of the Mass the wafer (bread) and wine turn into the literal flesh and blood of Christ. They say this occurs mystically. This belief comes from the Roman Catholic Church interpreting literally the saying of Jesus in John 6:54 "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life...". However, Jesus Himself explains in John 6:63 that He was talking spiritually and not literally about eating His flesh and blood. When we have genuinely put our personal faith and trust in Christ for salvation we are spiritually partaking of Him and the physical communion of bread and wine is a symbolic picture of that truth.

There are many other thoughts and passages of Scripture concerning the claims of Roman Catholicism that are not covered in this article. But, the essential argument has been made which is that all true Christians, regardless of denomination, belong spiritually to one body - the spiritual body of Christ. The Bible, in the New Testament, teaches that every Christian is a priest and saint (the word "saint" simply means spiritually "set apart" not sinless).

The New Testament further teaches that the Holy Spirit indwells every true believer and guides and teaches him or her especially as the believer studies God's Word, The Holy Bible. The Spirit does not teach all Christians at the same pace. The Bible tells individual Christians to prove everything by rightly interpreting God's Word. All Christians will give an account to God of whether they have rightly divided (interpreted) Scripture with the light God has given to them. The Bible was written for every believer to read and properly interpret. The Spirit teaches through pastors and other Christians as well.

History shows that the Holy Spirit has made sure through the centuries that all Christians agree on the essential or primary doctrines concerning the Person and work of Christ. On matters of secondary doctrines Christians have differed and continue to do so. The knowledge or lack of knowledge of these secondary doctrines do not affect our salvation or being in Christ but do affect our better understanding of God. One day in glory the Spirit will make sure all Christians see eye-to-eye on everything. Why this is not so now is a mystery.

If God can speak to the Pope's heart He can speak to our hearts. God doesn't give all Christians equal light on Biblical issues, but if God can speak to the Pope's heart and hold him accountable for correctly interpreting Scripture, then God can also hold all individual Christians responsible and accountable to rightly divide the Word of Truth. And we will know, including the Pope, on that day if we faithfully discharged our duty.

What is not a mystery, however, is that we cannot earn our salvation. None of us can perfectly meet God's holy standards as revealed in the Ten Commandments. Jesus Christ (God the Son) came to earth, lived a sinless life and died and shed His blood on the Cross to pay for our sins, which we could never fully pay. He rose from the dead and by God's grace alone through faith in Christ we are forgiven of our sins, have the guarantee of eternal life. And even though as Christians we will never be perfect in this life God's unmerited redeeming grace in our lives through faith will produce good works in our lives pleasing to God.

The Bible says " For by grace (God's unmerited or undeserved favor) are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Christ Fulfilled The Sabbath

2010-04-03T15:58:00.005-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

There are many Christians who claim that the observance of the Sabbath (the day of rest) is still a duty and requirement today because it is part of the Ten Commandments. Christians who believe this claim either Saturday (the original Hebrew observance) or Sunday for their day of Sabbath. However, a larger question than what day needs to be answered and that is whether the keeping of the Sabbath still applies.

The Bible teaches in the Book of Exodus 31:17 that the Sabbath was strictly a sign for the Jews, not for everyone. Although the command to observe the Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments, it is the only part of the Ten Commandments that is ceremonial in nature. All of the ceremonial laws and types were fulfilled by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

The Apostle Paul in the New Testament says that all of the various Sabbath observances have been done away with and that every day of the week may be treated as the same (Colossians 2: 16-18;Romans 14: 5-6).

And Hebrews 4:1-11 teaches that the Sabbath Day was actually a figure of spiritual rest in Christ.

But, doesn't Scripture teach that the Sabbath is to be observed "forever". The word "forever" in Scripture simply means the entire length or duration of something. If that something is eternal then the word "forever" must mean eternity, but if that something is temporal then the word "forever" simply means the entire length or time of that temporal period. For example, in Exodus 21:6 we read that certain persons were to be servants forever. Obviously, that does not mean for eternity.

The Sabbath as the the day of rest in the Old Testament had an overall spiritual meaning above and beyond its immediate meaning. The immediate meaning of the Sabbath was to provide God's people a rest from a week of work and toil and to commemorate the fact that God ceased (rested) from His work of creation on the seventh day.

However, the Sabbath spiritually symbolized an even greater meaning - that the greatest work of God, the work of salvation, has been once and for all completed through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

The Apostle in the Book of Hebrews says we have a Sabbath still to keep. What He means is that we have yet to experience the full effects of that eternal rest Christ won for us on Calvary.

On the Cross Christ paid the full penalty for our sins through His suffering and death. His was a sinless life on earth and His meritorious work of keeping the law faultlessly and perfectly on our behalf was totally accepted by God the Father. He faithfully took the punishment from God the Father that we deserve for our sins on the Cross. His resurrection sealed and guaranteed all that He did on our behalf.

Now, it does not matter whether Saturday or Sunday or any day. All that matters is Christ. Let us not, therefore, bind a commandment and observance on others that the New Testament teaches has been fulfilled and done away with through the Cross of Christ.

When Scripture is studied in the context of what all of Scripture teaches on the subject, and when Scripture is compared with Scripture, the logical and rational conclusion then is that all the Ten Commandemnts still apply for today except the commandment for observing the Sabbath. Neither the Sabbath or the other ceremonial laws apply for today. Again, remember, although the command to observe the Sabbath is part of the Ten Commandments, it is the only part of the Ten Commandments that is ceremonial in nature. We know this by understanding what other portions of Scripture teaches on the subject.

Common Misconceptions About Evolution

2010-04-03T15:58:00.004-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

There is a common misconception concerning evolution that continues to be perpetuated. For example, in November of 2004, articles appeared in major U.S. newspapers saying that running may have contributed to the evolution of man.

The simple fact is that physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes - not by running or any other form of exercise. Any physical changes from exercises that are performed do not affect the genes and will not be passed on. For example, you cannot pass on a sun tan to your offspring even if you could live thousands of years in a tropical country getting a nice dark tan under the hot blazing sun. Traits or characteristics which are acquired from the environment simply cannot be passed on to offspring (i.e. a woman who loses her finger will not cause her baby to be born with a missing finger; changing the color or texture of your hair will not affect the hair color or texture of your descendants, etc.)

Thus, even if an ape ever did learn to walk and run upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Furthermore, only the changes that occur in the genes of reproductive cells ( i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring. That is a simple fact of biology. Biological traits are produced by genes.

How come we find dark people as natives in tropical countries? Obviously those in humanity who inherited genes for dark skin migrated to warmer climates where their skin complexion was of greater help and aid to them. Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection is a passive process in nature. Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce biological traits or variations.

The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any conscious or active selection. If a biological variation occurs which helps a member of a species to survive in its environment then that biological variation will be preserved and be passed on to future offspring. That we call "natural selection".

A major problem for evolutionists is how could a partially-evolved plant or animal species survive over, supposedly, millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-killing germs if their immune system hadn't evolved yet?

The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body at this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.

The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for limited evolution (or microevolution) which is variations within biological "kinds" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., but not macroevolution which is variations across biological "kinds", especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones (i.e. from fish to human). Even if a new species develops but there are no new genes or traits then there still is no real macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds) and the different species would remain within the same biological "kind" even though they would no longer have the ability to inter-breed. Unless Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not be possible.

The genetic ability for microevolution exists in Nature but not the genetic ability for macroevolution. The genes (chemical and genetic instructions or programs) for microevolution exist in every species but not the genes for macroevolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes and not just to produce variations and new combinations of already existing genes) then macroevolution will never be possible in Nature.

Variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-like creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and so on, as Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not genetically possible. Although the chemicals to make entirely new genes exist in all varieties of plant and animal kinds, the DNA or genetic program that exists in each plant or animal kind will only direct those chemicals into making more of the same genes or variations of the same genes but not entirely new genes.

Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of species. The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various nucleic acids, which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters in a sentence. It is this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body how to construct various tissues and organs.

The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the genetic code over time will produce entirely new sequences for new traits and characteristics which natural selection can then act upon resulting in entirely new species. Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering.

However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and toxic chemicals.

Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.

Most biological variations, however, occur as a result of new combinations of previously existing genes - not because of mutations, which are rare in nature.

Furthermore, mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change the gene so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop.

Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics.

What about “Junk DNA”? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA” isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties or "races" of people could come from the same original human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair ( i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue), but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

In reality there is only one race - the human race - within which exists myriad variations and permutations.

Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

There is, of course, much more to be said on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues ( i.e. fossils, "transitional" links, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc.) at greater depth on his website at www.creationscience.com.

On his website, Dr. Brown even discusses the possibility of any remains of life on Mars as having originated from the Earth due to great geological disturbances in the Earth's past which easily could have spewed thousands of tons of rock and dirt containing microbes into space. In fact, A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

An excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) in San Diego, California. Also, the reader may find answers to many difficult questions concerning the Bible (including questions on creation and evolution, Noah's Ark, how dinosaurs fit into the Bible, etc.)at www.ChristianAnswers.net.

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design or creation be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state. As a religion and science writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at my website www.religionscience.com for more in-depth study of the issue.

In Nature But Not Invented By Nature

2010-04-03T15:56:00.010-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

We hear it all the time. "Mother Nature" designed this or "Mother Nature" designed that. Wow! (A moment of silence, please...)

But, just because something exists in nature doesn't mean it originated from nature. For example, once there is a complete and living cell then all the biological machinery and directing code exists to direct the formation (copies) of more cells. The problem for atheists is how did the original cell come into being when there was no biological machinery and code in nature. If all the chemicals that make-up an earthworm were scattered and left to themselves, "Mother Nature" would have no ability to re-organize them into a worm again. It takes an already existing worm to bring about another worm. The worm exists and reproduces in nature but Nature didn't design or invent the original worm!

Although it has been shown that amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, can come into existence by chance, it has never been shown that the various amino acids can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. The only reason why amino acids come together into a sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already existing genetic code or program (DNA) which also is made up of molecules arranged in a precise sequence.

If there wasn't any already existing DNA and protein molecules, poor "Mother Nature" would be helpless to make any DNA or proteins.

In the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.

All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.

Recent news reports suggest that scientists may be close to creating artificial (synthetic) life. None of this is happening by chance but by intelligent design and planning. Why, then, will many not give credit to God for the original DNA and life?

In the case involving synthetic (artificial) life, scientists don't actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter. What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing living cell and, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

As mentioned earlier, it has been shown that some of the basic building blocks of life, amino acids, can come into existence by chance, but it has never been shown that the various amino acids can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of protein molecules. An average protein molecule may have five hundred amino acids arranged sequentially. Larger protein molecules may have thousands. The simplest cell has millions of complex protein molecules!

Without DNA there cannot be RNA, and without RNA there cannot be DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there cannot be proteins, and without proteins there cannot be DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! The cell is irreducibly complex. It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

Once there is a complete, living, and fully functioning cell then, of course, the genetic program and the complex biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. In a complete and living cell, the cell membrane allows for certain raw materials and molecules from the environment to enter into the cell. Once inside the cell, the genetic code and other complex biological mechanisms direct these raw materials or molecules to form into more cells with their own genetic code and complex mechanisms. The question is how could life have come about naturally on Earth when there was no already existing code or directing mechanism in Nature.

In nature there are what scientists call right-handed and left-handed amino acids. However, life requires that all proteins be left-handed. So, not only do millions of amino acids have to be in the correct sequence, they also all have to be left-handed. If a right-handed amino acid gets mixed in then the protein molecules won't function. There won't be any life!

Similarly, the nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be in a precise sequence. The sugar molecules that make-up the various nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be right-handed. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then nothing will work.

What about “Junk DNA”? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA” isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

We tend to judge something as being simple or complex by its size. So many of us assume that because the cell is microscopic in size that it must be simple. Not so! Size is relative, but not complexity. If you were as big as the Empire State building you would probably think that the tiny cars and automobiles on the street were simple and could easily happen by a chance combination of parts. However, we know that is not so.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

Science cannot prove how life originated since no human observed the origin of life by either chance or design. Observation and detection by the human senses, either directly or indirectly through scientific instruments, is the basis of science and for establishing proof. The issue is which position has better scientific support. Both sides should have the opportunity to present their case.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

Many think that natural selection in nature is proof that we had evolved. Natural selection does occur in nature. However, natural selection itself does not produce biological variations. It can only "select" from what is produced. Natural selection can only work with those biological variations which are possible and which have survival value. It is a passive process in nature. Natural selection is simply another way of saying that if a biological variation occurs which is helpful to an animal or plant's survival then that that variation will be preserved and be passed on. Of course, nature does not do any active or conscious selecting. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech.

Also, natural selection only applies once there is life and not before. In other words, natural selection is not involved in any pre-biotic, non-living interactions of chemicals.

Evolutionists believe that random or chance mutations in the genetic code (caused by random environmental forces such as radiation) will produce the favorable evolutionary changes necessary for natural selection to act upon.

However, there is no evidence that random or chance mutations in the genetic code are capable of producing greater biological complexity (vertical evolution) among natural species. Mutations are only capable of producing horizontal evolution (variations within natural species). In any case, most biological variations among natural species are due to new combinations of already existing genes and not mutations.

Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species are due to a common Designer rather than common evolutionary ancestry. It is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life.

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity, which could have easily spewed dirt-containing microbes into outer space, which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

Just because the right conditions exist to sustain life doesn't mean that those conditions can bring life into being by chance.

We know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. It requires a beginning. But, we also know from science that natural laws could not have brought the universe into being from nothing. The beginning of the universe, therefore, points to a supernatural origin!

All of this simply means that real science supports faith in God. Again, science cannot prove that we are here by chance (evolution) or by design (creation). However, the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other. It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools, which receive funding from taxpayers, who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state.

What we believe about our origins will influence our philosophy and value of life. This is no small matter!

What about God? Where did God come from? Obviously, God didn’t need a beginning, but the nature of the universe requires a beginning. We know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. It requires a beginning. But, we also know from science that natural laws could not have brought the universe into being from nothing. The beginning of the universe, therefore, points to a Supernatural origin!

As a religion and science writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at my website www.religionscience.com for more in-depth study of the issue.

The Institute for Creation research (www.icr.org) has many good articles, books, and resources from Ph.D or Master's degreed scientists who believe in creation and who believe that true scientific supports creation.

Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree!

2010-04-03T15:56:00.006-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

There are many who oppose theologians as having any ability to speak on matters of science, even in cases where such theologians also have scientific background and training. The opposition is especially great against theologians who defend the Biblical account of creation and show that science supports faith in God.

It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a theologian. Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training in the sciences. Yet, the staunch evolutionists who make fun of theologians using science to defend creation would never criticize the great Darwin on the grounds that he was a mere theologian.

It would further surprise many to know that the founder of the modern science of genetics, Gregor Mendel, was a theologian. Mendel was an Austrian monk whose experiments and study of cross-breeding of plants laid the foundations of the gene theory and our understanding of genetics and biological variation and transmission of biological traits within natural species.

Darwin's and Mendel's works contradict each other. Darwin taught that there were no limits to biological variation and that, if given enough time, a fish could evolve into a human being. Mendel, on the other hand, showed that there are natural limits to biological variations. Variations within biological kinds (such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) are possible but not variations across biological kinds, especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones. Mendel showed that evolution is limited to within the "kinds".

The only variations that biologists have observed in nature are variations of already existing traits, but evolutionists believe that random or chance mutations in the genetic code, caused by random environmental forces such as radiation, over time will produce entirely new traits which natural selection can then act upon.

Yes, Darwin did show that natural selection occurs in nature, but natural selection is not a creative force. Natural selection is a passive process in nature. Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce the biological variations.

When a biological change or variation occurs which helps an animal to survive in its environment then that variation will be preserved and be passed on to offspring. That is called "natural selection". There is, of course, no conscious or active selection on the part of nature as some think. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech.

As was mentioned already, evolutionists believe that random or chance mutations in the genetic code, caused by random environmental forces such as radiation, will produce entirely new traits and variations which natural selection can then act upon. In reality it would require genetic engineering (intelligent manipulation of the genetic code) to produce entirely new traits. But, evolutionists argue that, if given enough time, chance mutations in the genetic code produced by the random forces of nature can accomplish the same as genetic engineering.

However, mutations are accidents in the sequential molecular structure of the genetic code and they are almost always harmful, as would be expected from accidents. Of course, just like some earthquakes that don't do any damage to buildings, there are also mutations that don't do any biological harm. But, even if a good mutation does occur for every good mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.

For those who are not read-up on their biology, a little information on genes would be helpful here. What we call "genes" are actually segments of the DNA molecule. DNA, or the genetic code, is composed of a molecular string of various nucleic acids (chemical letters) which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters found in the words and sentences of a book. It is this sequence of nucleic acids in DNA that tells the cells of our body how to construct (or build) various proteins, tissues, and organs such as nose, eyes, brain, etc. If the nucleic acids in the genetic code are not in the correct sequence then malfunctioning, or even worse, harmful proteins may form causing serious health problems and even death.

There is no law in science that nucleic acids have to come together in a particular sequence. Any nucleic acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason for why nucleic acids are found in a particular sequence in the DNA of the cells of our bodies is because they are directed to do so by previously existing DNA. When new cells form in our bodies the DNA of the old cells direct the formation of the DNA in the new cells.

The common belief among evolutionists is that, if given millions of years, radiation and other environmental forces will cause enough random changes (mutations) to occur in the sequential structure of the genetic code of a species so that entirely new sequences for entirely new genes will develop which in turn will program for the formation of entirely new biological traits, organs, and structures that natural selection can then act upon.

Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will eventually get a book on astronomy? Of course not! And if the book were a living being it would have died in the process of such random changes.

Such changes as transforming one book into another or the DNA of one species into the DNA of another, especially one more complex, simply cannot occur by random or chance alterations. It would require intelligent planning and design to change one book into another or to change the DNA of a simpler species into the DNA of a more complex one. Yes, the raw materials and chemicals to make new genes exist in all species, but random forces of the environment (i.e. radiation, etc.) simply have no ability to rearrange those chemicals and biological materials into entirely new genes or into an entirely new genetic code.

What about “Junk DNA”? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA” isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

Furthermore, a half-evolved and useless organ waiting millions of years to be completed by random mutations would be a liability and hindrance to a species - not exactly a prime candidate for natural selection. In fact, a major problem for evolutionists is how species could have survived over, supposedly, millions of years while their vital or necessary organs were still in the process of evolving!

If the environment doesn't possess the ability to perform genetic engineering and if macro-evolution really did not occur then how else can one explain the genetic and biological similarities which exist between various species and, indeed, all of life. Although it cannot be scientifically proven, creationists believe that the only rational explanation for the genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life is due to a common Designer who designed and created similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life from the simplest to the most complex. Even humans employ the principle of common design in their varied architecture of buildings!

The greatest problem for evolutionists is the origin of life itself. It is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.

All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

Although it has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, amino acids, can come into existence by chance, it has never been shown that the various amino acids can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of protein molecules.

Without DNA there cannot be RNA, and without RNA there cannot be DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there cannot be proteins, and without proteins there cannot be DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! The cell is irreducibly complex. It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

Once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and various biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells from random raw materials in the environment. The question is how could life have come about naturally on Earth when there were no directing mechanisms.

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

We tend to judge something as being simple or complex by its size. So many of us assume that because the cell is microscopic in size that it must be simple. Not so! Size is relative, but not complexity. If you were as big as the Empire State building you would probably think that the tiny cars and automobiles on the street were simple and could easily happen by a chance combination of parts. However, we know that is not so.

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt containing microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

Science cannot prove how life originated since no human observed the origin of life by either chance or design. Observation and detection by the human senses, either directly or indirectly through scientific instruments, is the basis of science and for establishing proof. The issue is which position has better scientific support. Both sides should have the opportunity to present their case.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

All of this simply means that real science supports faith in God. Science cannot prove that we are here by chance (evolution) or by design (creation). However, the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other. It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state.

Belief in neither evolution nor creation is necessary to the actual study of science itself. One can study and understand how the human body works and become a first class surgeon regardless of whether he or she believes the human body is the result of the chance forces of Nature or of a Supreme Designer.

What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

As a religion and science writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at my website http://www.religionscience.com where various issues (i.e. the origin of life, the fossil record, mutations, natural selection or survival of the fittest, genetic and biological similarities between species, arguments from embryology, the subject of vestigial organs or structures, the age of the earth, etc.) are examined in much greater depth.

Dr. Walt Brown (MIT scientist and author) has made available on line his thorough and comprehensive book: In the Beginning: Evidence for Creation and the Flood at creationscience.com. Some other excellent resources for answers to many questions readers may have on science and the Bible are ChristianAnswers.net and SearchfortheTruth.net. There are many highly-qualified scientists who believe in creation!

Israel and The Land (2nd Edition)

2010-04-03T15:55:00.007-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

The best way for Israel to stop terrorist attacks in its territory is by first ceasing its occupation of all Arab lands and the continual, unrestrained building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Israel was right in defending itself and its populace from annihilation by the surrounding Arab states in the 1967 war. Now, there is a far greater willingness among the Arab states to accept Israel's existence. Israel is at peace with Egypt and Jordan. It is time for Israel to consider pulling out of the West Bank entirely, which would help tremendously to catalyze its acceptance and right to exist among its Arab neighbors. Even many Israelis themselves support this. Many Israelis are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians.

The problem, however, is that Israel will not pull back to its pre-1967 borders so long as most evangelical Christians in America continue to believe that present day Jews have a biblical right to all of Arab territory in Palestine and even beyond. The minority of war hawks in Israel depend upon this skewered American evangelical support. For this reason a biblical examination of the issue is necessary.

As an evangelical and conservative Christian, of Indian origin, I wish to set the biblical issue in proper perspective.

Although the modern state of Israel now has every right to exist as any other nation (as long as it honors the UN resolutions upholding Palestinian rights) this does not mean that Zionism (the belief that Jews have a biblical right to all of Palestine) is correct. And it is Zionism that is primarily fuelling the building and expansion of illegal Israeli settlements on Arab land.

From a purely biblical perspective Zionism has enormous problems.

The fact is that almost none of the Jews in modern Israel are descendants of the original Jews of Palestine thousands of years ago. Most of the Jews in Israel today are descendants of Europeans who had converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages (known as Khazar or Ashkenazi Jews).

The last time God had promised in the scriptures to bring the Jews back to their ancestral homeland was fulfilled centuries ago when He brought them back from their Babylonian captivity. We read in the Book of Daniel that, during the Babylonian captivity, the Jews were spread through out all the nations of the empire of Babylon. When most of these Jews returned to Israel from their Babylonian captivity that fulfilled God's only and last promise of bringing His people back to their homeland. Thus, the Jews in present-day modern Israel are not a fulfillment of that ancient promise.

Furthermore, God's promises concerning the land to the Jews in the Old Testament were conditional - only so long as they continued to obey Him were those promises concerning the land binding (read Deuteronomy 28). God fulfilled his promise concerning the land to the Jews centuries ago.

We read in the Book of Joshua 21:43, 45: "And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which He sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass." Thus, there is no promise concerning the land that still awaits any fulfillment.

Most evangelical Christians today are looking forward to the seven-year tribulation period of Israel which would require for the Jews to be in the land. But this period had already occurred in history during AD63 to AD70. (seven years) when the Roman army besieged and destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple.

It was this destruction that Jesus said would mark the end of the age (the Jewish Age, that is). During these seven years, there was a brief respite from the attacking Roman army and this respite gave an opportunity for believing Jews (Christians) of this time to escape the final destruction of Jerusalem and have their lives spared.

Most evangelical Christians, who are dispensationalists, are still seeking for an Israel that the New Testament says is the spiritual body of Christ made up of both Jew and Gentile believers in Jesus Christ and who together (as one seed) inherit the same (not different) promises (Galatians 3:14-16).

The New Testament refers to the Christian church as the "Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16). There is good reason to believe that some of the Old Testament descriptions of God's future dealings with Israel are already being fulfilled spiritually in and through the Christian church which is made up of both Jew and Gentile believers in Christ inheriting the same (not different) promises.

The problem with most evangelical Christians today is that they interpret the Book of Revelation literally. But Revelation is a book of symbolism and should not to be interpreted literally. The Book itself tells us not to interpret it literally.

In the very first verse of the very first chapter we read, "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God (the Father) gave unto Him, to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass; and He sent and signified it by His angel unto His servant John" (Revelation 1:1, KJV). The word "signified" in the passage comes from a Greek word meaning "signs" or "symbols". Thus, Revelation was meant by Christ to be interpreted symbolically, not literally.

The Book of Revelation, like the rest of the New Testament, was originally written in Greek so sometimes we must go to the Greek language to have a more precise understanding of certain words.

Many evangelical Christians believe (wrongly) that the "Great City" in the Book of Revelation, which God destroys in His wrath and which is referred to figuratively as Babylon, is Rome. They believe it is Rome because the city is described as being surrounded by seven hills.

However, Jerusalem, also, is surrounded by seven hills. The proof that Jerusalem is the city and not Rome is found in Revelation 11:8 where we read, "And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified".

Was the Lord crucified in Rome or in Jerusalem? The wrath of God against Jerusalem for its apostate Judaism is what the early portions of the Book of Revelation are all about.

The modern state of Israel, now that it has been established, has every right to exist, but Israel should also be made to uphold the UN resolutions concerning Palestinian inalienable rights. Unlike before, almost all Arabs, including Palestinians, now recognize Israel's right to exist or, at least, will not wage war with Israel if Israel completely withdraws to its pre-1967 borders. But, what Palestinians and other Arabs cannot live with is Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and Israel's continued building of settlements there.

Most Palestinians will stop their resistance and even go after the terrorists themselves if Israel simply gets out of their way (the West Bank) and that is the best way for Israel to stop the resistance and preserve its security and peace - not to mention the security and peace of others.

It is important, however, to have some basic background knowledge of how the modern state of Israel was founded.

As one writer points out: "Israel was created (in the beginning) not by force of arms or military invasion, but terrorist activity advocated by Jewish immigrants, in an effort to get rid of the British Administration (the lawful government of the day, as sanctioned by the predecessor to the UN). Britain abandoned its mandate and Israel was created by the UN."

Any solution to the present crisis must also involve monetary or financial compensation being made by Israel to Palestinian families who have had their homes and lands seized and taken away during the formation of the modern state of Israel in the 1940's. (According to the UN resolution 194, Palestinian refugees have the right for compensation and repatriation). Repatriation may be asking too much now, but it's not asking too much for financial compensation to be made. Hamas and other militant groups must recognize the modern nation of Israel. They must face reality. Someone has always conquered someone else in history. Not all wrongs can be corrected.

During that time Palestinian families suffered huge atrocities at the hands of Jewish immigrants, including many pregnant Palestinian Arab women having their wombs ripped open and their babies slaughtered before their very eyes. This was one of the many horrible crimes committed against Palestinians, even by such notable political figures as former Prime Minister of Israel Menachem Begin, and the Palestinians should be compensated by the modern state of Israel for these crimes. That is only right.

The terrorism committed by Jewish immigrants against Palestinian Arabs in the late 1940's is a major reason for why many Palestinian Arabs fled their homes and land and became refugees.

However, as long as most evangelical Christians in America believe modern Zionism is biblical they will continue to exert one-sided pressure in Washington DC in support of Israel's status quo in the region and prevent any pressure on Israel to pull back to its pre-1967 borders and discontinue building settlements on Arab land.

That is why it is very important to understand that there is no biblical basis for modern Zionism.

If America insists Israel must be fair to Palestinians it will not only help achieve peace in the Middle East but also will reduce Muslim extremism, and even terrorism, against the United States.

For those interested in a biblical study of the historic Christian preterist view and interpretation of the Book of Revelation and Bible prophecy concerning the second coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ an excellent site to visit is www.preteristarchive.com where various links and resources are available on the subject.

Read the author's popular Internet article SECOND COMING OF CHRIST MISUNDERSTOOD.

Chemotherapy Success With Aloe Vera!

2010-04-03T15:54:00.002-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Chemotherapy doesn't have to be a dreadful experience for cancer patients. Aloe vera juice, that is pure and of good quality, helps by strengthening the body's natural immune system to fight cancer cells while at the same time protecting healthy cells from irreversible damage that normally is caused by chemotherapy. A cancer patient taking aloe vera juice during chemotherapy will, more than likely, experience far fewer side effects and nausea and far greater probability of success in either eliminating the cancer or having the cancer go into remission.

This scientific article by Dr. Lawrence G. Plaskett: "Aloe and Cancer" http://www.cancer-coverup.com/fighters/aloe-cancer.htm reveals the clinically proved benefits of taking aloe vera during chemotherapy. In fact it is good to take aloe vera everyday to maintain proper health. I am personally taking 4oz. of aloe vera daily mixed with juice so that the taste doesn't bother me.

Walmart stores carry aloe vera in gallon jugs at a very affordable price. Food really is the best medicine! For thousands of years, in all sorts of cultures, aloe vera has been successfully used for all sorts of ailments. Walmart uses the best part of the aloe vera plant and their aloe vera plants are all organically grown and the juice is pure (no fillers or additives).

Modern science shows that aloe vera, a desert plant, contains many vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients. Taking aloe vera on a regular basis can help prevent serious disease and, as mentioned already, can help the body to heal from various ailments and diseases including cancer. The proof is in the thousands of individuals who have experienced the benefits of aloe vera over the centuries.

Aloe vera is food so it shouldn't interfere with any prescription medication an individual is already taking. Find out first if you're allergic to aloe vera. Rub some on your skin. If your skin doesn't break out then go ahead and start off with a 4 oz. glass every day. If you have a medical condition consider taking two or three 4 oz. glasses a day.

The taste is not good so consider using honey, orange juice, apple juice, whatever sweetener you like to make it easier for you to drink the juice. Sweetening the juice will not lessen its effectiveness. The benefits of the juice gets will get into your system whether or not you sweeten the juice.

I personally know of someone at work who had very high blood pressure. She took three 4 oz. glasses of aloe vera for one month and her blood pressure returned completely back to normal. Now that her blood pressure is back to normal normal, she is taking only one 4oz glass of aloe vera juice daily to maintain her health. Aloe vera won't cause side effects like many prescription medicines. And because aloe vera is all food you can safely take it with prescription medication.

Here is a link to a very interesting article, "The Aloe Vera Miracle" by Mike Adams: http://www.naturalnews.com/021858.html. For pennies a day you can be healthy or regain your health.

There is no money to made by the medical profession or hospitals by giving patients aloe vera or any other natural remedy. The drug companies hold medical doctors and hospitals in their hands. Prescription medication is a multi-billion dollar money-making machine. Yes, some prescriptions are good. I am not saying all prescription medications are bad.

Many research scientists at major public universities continually report how foods in nature can help prevent or heal diseases. This information, for the most part, doesn't get taught in medical schools, particularly in the United States. There is a big disconnect between university research scientists and the medical profession, again, especially in the United States.

God may very well have put within aloe vera everything the body needs for good health. All medicine is from chemicals. You have the choice between taking God's chemicals in nature or man's chemicals from the laboratory.

Walmart sells excellent quality Aloe Vera juice (from Fruit of The Earth) sold in their pharmacy section. It's inexpensive. Get it!

I am not making any money from any company or corporation in giving you this advice about the health benefits of aloe vera juice.

Ardi Not A Missing Link!

2010-04-03T15:52:00.000-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

The problem with evolutionary news of fossil finds, like the recent discovery of Ardi, is that the public is given an impression in the popular media that all scientists agree with the evolutionary conclusions of such finds. The public is never, or very rarely, exposed to scientific disagreements. There are many assumptions and personal interpretations of the fossil evidence which are conveniently passed on by the media as scientific fact.

What we know of Ardi is that it is an extinct primate with all the features of an ape. But, it was a unique ape, not like any of the apes living today. Ardi had features found in various ape species. Ardi was a mosaic of various ape features, but it was still compeletely ape. No part of Ardi was in any transition to becoming human. Some evolutionists simply assume Ardi to be an ancestor of humans simply because it was a unique ape.

Institute for Creation Research science writer, Brian Thomas, makes some very insightful remarks about Ardi. Here are a few excerpts from his article "Did Humans Evolve from Ardi?"

"According to the researchers who found her, Ardi spent time as a human ancestor, based on their assumption that humans either evolved from her or some creature quite like her."

"The Ar. ramidus fossils therefore provide novel insights into the anatomical structure of our elusive common ancestors with the African apes," stated one of the Science papers, concluding that 'Ar. ramidus implies that African apes are adaptive cul-de-sacs rather than stages in human emergence.'1 Another paper viewed Ardi as the source of a new model of hominid evolution:

Referential models based on extant African apes have dominated reconstructions of early human evolution since Darwin's time . . . . Ardipithecus essentially falsifies such models, because extant apes are highly derived relative to our last common ancestors.2

Yet none of these statements carry meaning without the presupposition of evolution in general, and unless Ardipithecus is presumed to be an ancestor to man.

To place Ardi into human ancestry, as these authors insisted, creates more problems than it solves. For example, Ardipithecus' body structure shows no objective or undisputable transition toward uniquely human features. The authors themselves listed some of these differences: Humans have unique and interdependent sexual organs and reproductive biochemistry, unique feet, ankles and musculature, unique hip structure, unique teeth and crania, totally unique cognitive abilities, a distinct "gut structure," upright walking, unique vocal apparatus, a "precipitous reduction of olfactory receptors," mammary glands that retain a stable size, unadvertised female proceptivity, and an "unusually energy-thirsty brain."3

Please read his entire article at: http://www.icr.org/article/4975/.

The scientific fact is that there is no evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there is evidence that apes evolved from four-legged mammals.

A true transitional link or form would be something like a fish having part fins...part feet. This would show that the fins actually turned into feet. There's nothing like this in the fossil record. All traits of animals and plants in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. There are no real or true transitional forms (i.e. "missing" links) among the fossils or living creatures for that matter.

Many times, evolutionists use similarities of traits shared by different species as a basis for claiming a transitional ("missing") link. But, the problem for evolutionists is that all the traits which they cite are complete and fully-formed. And evolutionists are not consistent. The duck-billed platypus, for example, has traits belonging to both mammals and birds but even evolutionists won't go so far as to claim that the duck-billed platypus is a transitional link between birds and mammals!

In many other cases, however, evolutionists will use shared similarities of traits between various species as an example of a transitional (or "missing") link, but these are not true "missing" or transitional links so long as the traits are complete and fully-formed.

At times evolutionists have used various bones gathered from many yards of each other and classified them as belonging to the same creature (even when there's no proof). They then reconstruct from these bones whatever will support their hypotheses. The fossil case "Lucy" is an excellent example of this. Scientists have only forty percent of the bones for Lucy. The bones were found yards from each other, some were found even a mile or more away! The knee joint (the main evidence used) was found two hundred feet below ground from the rest of the bones. Many of the leading scientists doubt that the bones all belong to the same species or individual. And, some of the key bones are crushed. Yet, from all of this evolutionists have reconstructed a drawing of an ape-man creature (in full color) for display in textbooks and museums! Many experts are not convinced that Lucy was an ape-man because they're not convinced all of the bones belong to the same individual or even the same species. Many leading authorities have said that "Lucy" is really an extinct ape, but not an ape-man. Those scientists who are convinced that Lucy was an ape-man are the ones that receive all the attention from the mainstream media. Millions of people are taught in schools and textbooks all over the world that the fossil record furnishes scientific proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?

The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.

In fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human. Yet, many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

The Piltdown Man was an actual fraud that fooled the world for over forty years! It was eventually discovered that the Piltdown Man was a forgery of ape and human bones ingeniously placed together to convince the scientific community that the "missing" link was found.

Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?

The only evolution that is possible in nature is micro-evolution (variations within a biological kind such as the varieties of dogs, horses, cows, etc.) but not macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds).

The genes must first exist or otherwise the evolution cannot occur. All real evolution simply is an expression over time of what already existed previously in the genetic pool of a population.

Evolution just doesn't happen. Something has to direct the formation and transformation of biological matter for evolution to occur. That something is what we call genes. Genes are located on the DNA molecule (the genetic code). DNA is the abbreviated name for the genetic code and it is exactly that - a code. It is a molecular string of chemical information.

The genes exist in all species for micro-evolution (variation within biological kinds) but not for macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds), and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits.

Another problem for macro-evolution is the issue of survival of the fittest. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset.

Many people have wrong ideas about evolution. For example, in November of 2004, articles appeared in major U.S. newspapers saying that running may have contributed to the evolution of man.

The simple fact is that physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes - not by running or any other form of exercise. Traits or characteristics which are acquired from the environment simply cannot be passed on to offspring (i.e. a woman who loses her finger will not cause her baby to be born with a missing finger; changing the color and texture of your hair will not affect the color and texture of your children's hair. Even if an ape ever did learn to walk and run upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Only the changes that occur in the genes (genetic information) of reproductive cells ( i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring. That is a simple fact of biology.

Adaptation is the result of natural selection. Let's imagine, for example, that all humans only have black hair, but the environment changed so that only humans with red hair can survive. Some of the black-haired humans also are carrying unexpressed genes for red hair. Over time some children are born with red hair. The red-haired ones survive (are "selected") while all the black-haired ones die off. The red-haired children will ensure that the human species will continue to exist under the new and changed environment. That's biological adaptation!

Natural selection doesn't create or produce biological traits. Natural selection can only "select" from what is produced. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, doesn't do any conscious selecting. If a biological variation occurs that helps a species to survive then we say that the species was "selected". Natural selection is just another name for "survival of the fittest".

Genetic similarities between species are no proof of common biological ancestry. What if the similarities between species are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes?

Genetic information, like any other information, doesn't happen by chance. Therefore, it's far more logical to believe that the genetic similarities between all forms of life are because of a common Designer or Genetic Engineer (God) who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life.

Biologically speaking, only genetic similarities within a biological "kind" can be used as proof of relationship since only members or varieties within a "kind" are capable of inter-breeding and reproducing, thus establishing proof of biological relationship.

Visit icr.org to read excellent articles by scientists who believe science supports faith in God.

For an in-depth study of the subject, please read the large version of the author's article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at www.religionscience.com.

The Institute for Creation Research at www.icr.org offers excellent articles, books, and resources from Master's or Ph.D degreed scientists showing how true science supports creation.

MIT scientist and creationist Dr. Walt Brown has an excellent site at www.creationscience.com.

Missing Links That Never Were

2010-04-03T15:51:00.001-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Does the recent discovery of a supposed 47 million year old fossil of a monkey furnish us with a finally discovered "missing" link? The monkey is fully-formed and complete, but it shares similarities belonging to various species. That doesn't qualify it to be a true transitional form or missing link.

A true transitional link or form would be something like a fish having part fins...part feet. This would show that the fins actually turned into feet. There's nothing like this in the fossil record. All traits of animals and plants in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. There are no real or true transitional forms (i.e. "missing" links) among the fossils or living creatures for that matter.

Many times, evolutionists use similarities of traits shared by different species as a basis for claiming a transitional ("missing") link. But, the problem for evolutionists is that all the traits which they cite are complete and fully-formed. And evolutionists are not consistent. The duck-billed platypus, for example, has traits belonging to both mammals and birds but even evolutionists won't go so far as to claim that the duck-billed platypus is a transitional link between birds and mammals!

In many other cases, however, evolutionists will use shared similarities of traits between various species as an example of a transitional (or "missing") link, but these are not true "missing" or transitional links so long as the traits are complete and fully-formed.

At times evolutionists have used various bones gathered from many yards of each other and classified them as belonging to the same creature (even when there's no proof). They then reconstruct from these bones whatever will support their hypotheses. The fossil case "Lucy" is an excellent example of this. Scientists have only forty percent of the bones for Lucy. The bones were found yards from each other, some were found even a mile or more away! The knee joint (the main evidence used) was found two hundred feet below ground from the rest of the bones. Many of the leading scientists doubt that the bones all belong to the same species or individual. And, some of the key bones are crushed. Yet, from all of this evolutionists have reconstructed a drawing of an ape-man creature (in full color) for display in textbooks and museums! Many experts are not convinced that Lucy was an ape-man because they're not convinced all of the bones belong to the same individual or even the same species. Many leading authorities have said that "Lucy" is really an extinct ape, but not an ape-man. Those scientists who are convinced that Lucy was an ape-man are the ones that receive all the attention from the mainstream media. Millions of people are taught in schools and textbooks all over the world that the fossil record furnishes scientific proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?

The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.

In fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human. Yet, many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

The Piltdown Man was an actual fraud that fooled the world for over forty years! It was eventually discovered that the Piltdown Man was a forgery of ape and human bones ingeniously placed together to convince the scientific community that the "missing" link was found.

Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?

Scientist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book "In The Beginning", makes this point by saying "All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing."

A lizard with half-evolved legs and wings can't run or fly away from its predators. How would it survive? Why would it be preserved by natural selection? Imagine such a species surviving in such a miserable state over many millions of years waiting for fully-formed wings to evolve!

Some evolutionists cite the fossil of an ancient bird known to have claws as an example of a transitional link. However, there are two species of birds living today in South America that have claws on their wings, but even evolutionists today do not claim that these birds are transitional links from a reptilian ancestry. These claws are complete, as everything else on the birds.

What about all those spectacular and popular claims reported in the mass media of evolutionists having discovered certain transitional forms in the fossil record? Such claims have not been accepted by all evolutionists and, after much investigation and analysis, these claims have been found to have no hard basis in science. This has been the case of every so-called "missing link" and "transitional" form discovered since Darwin.

Recently it was thought they had discovered fossils of dinosaurs with feathers until they found out that the so-called feathers were really scales which only had the appearance of feathers. Scientists theorize the scales took upon a feather-like appearance during some brief stage of decomposition before being fossilized. Even if they were feathers, this still wouldn't be any kind of evidence to support macro-evolution unless they can show a series of fossils having part-scale/part-feather structures as evidence that the scales had really evolved into feathers.

The recent news about a footprint found to be 1.5 millions years as evidence for human evolution is based on circular reasoning. First, many don't realize the evolutionary assumptions involved in dating fossil layers, but that is another story. Readers who wish to pursue the subject may find the Pravda article "Are Fossils Really Millions Years Old?" of interest. Many have wrongly believed that evolutionists use infallible scientific dating methods. Concerning the recent discovery of a 1.5 million year footprint, it is assumed that because humans did not exist 1.5 million years ago that this footprint, which evidence shows belongs to a creature who walked erect, must have belonged to a simian being that was in the process of evolving into a human. This conclusion, actually, is based on a whole series of assumptions.

Evolutionists claim that genetic and biological similarities between species are evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation. Another interpretation is that comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various species and forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.

It is not rational to believe that genetic information can come about by chance (i.e. random mutations) so it is much more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between species are because of a common designer rather than common ancestry. The Creator designed similar genes and biological functions for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life. God was the first Genetic Engineer!

Not only are there no true transitional links in the fossil record, but the fossils themselves are not in the supposed geological sequential order as evolutionists claim in their textbooks. Of course, evolutionists have their various circular and unsupported arguments or reasons for why this is so.

If evolution across biological kinds (known as macro-evolution) really occurred then we should find billions of clear and indisputable transitional forms ("missing" links) in the fossil record (i.e. fossils of fish with part fins, part feet). Instead we find only a few very disputable "transitional" forms that even all evolutionists cannot agree upon.

The MSM (Main Stream Media) is very good at only reporting the opinions and analysis of those scientists who believe a fossil find supports macro-evolution. The MSM suppresses information and news of scientists who disagree that a particular fossil supports macro-evolution. There are many scientists who don't agree with Darwinian macro-evolution.

The Creation Research Society (www.creationresearch.org), for example, has a membership of thousands of scientists with a Master's or Ph.D in the natural sciences who all reject Darwinian macro-evolution. Many such scientists have suffered losing grants for research and even their very jobs because of they reject Darwinian macro-evolution. These scientists do believe that micro-evolution (variations within biological kinds such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) occurs in nature but not macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds).

Again, the point needs to be emphasized that species cannot wait millions of years for their vital (or necessary) organs and biological systems to evolve.

In fact, it is precisely because of these problems that more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced "instantaneous" changes from one life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not viable.

The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete which is possible only by creation.

Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection is a passive process in nature. Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce any biological traits or variations.

The term "Natural Selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any conscious or active selection. If a biological variation occurs which helps a member of a species to survive in its environment then that biological variation will be preserved ("selected") and be passed on to future offspring. That's what scientists mean by the term "natural selection". Since natural selection can only work with biological variations that are possible, the real question to ask is what biological variations are naturally possible. Natural selection is just another way of saying "Survival of the Fittest". But, this is exactly the problem for the Darwinian theory of macro-evolution.

How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset.

The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for micro-evolution (or horizontal) evolution within biological "kinds" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., but not macro-evolution (or vertical) evolution which would involve variations across biological "kinds"), especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones (i.e. from fish to human).

The genes exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution, and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Random forces in nature have no ability to perform genetic engineering so as to bring about entirely new genes. Mutations produce only variations of already existing genes. They do not produce entirely new genes.

Random genetic mutations caused by environmental forces will not produce entirely new genes anymore than randomly changing the sequences of letters in a cookbook will change it into a book on astronomy.

Even if a new species develops but there are no new genes or new traits then there still is no macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds) and the new species would remain within the same biological "kind" even though, for whatever biological reasons, it no longer has the ability to breed with the original type.

Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes) then macro-evolution will never be possible.

Although the chemicals to make entirely new genes exist in all varieties of plant and animal kinds, the DNA or genetic program that exists in each plant or animal kind will only direct those chemicals into making more of the same genes or variations of the same genes but not entirely new genes.

The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body at this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.

Abortion clinics have been known to console their patients by telling them that what they're terminating isn't really a human being yet but is only a guppy or tadpole!

But, didn't we all start off from a single cell in our mother's womb? Yes, but that single cell from which we developed had all of the genetic information to develop into a full human being. Other single cells, such as bacteria and amoeba, from which evolutionists say we and all other forms of life had evolved don't have the genetic information to develop into humans or other species.

There is no scientific evidence that random mutations in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation will increase genetic information and complexity which is what ultimately would be necessary to turn amoebas into humans. In fact, the law of entropy in nature would prevent random mutations from being able to accomplish such a feat!

Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of species. The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various nucleic acids which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters in a sentence. It is this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body how to construct various tissues and organs.

The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the genetic code produced by random environmental forces such as radiation, over time, will produce entirely new genetic sequences or genes for entirely new traits which natural selection can act upon resulting in entirely new biological kinds or forms of life . Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering.

However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and toxic chemicals.

Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.

Most biological variations occur because of new combinations of already existing genes - not because of mutations.

Mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change the gene so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop.

Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics.

Furthermore, only those mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Mutations and any changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger it would not result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once-held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring.

What about “Junk DNA”? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA” isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

How come we find dark people as natives in tropical countries? Obviously those in humanity who inherited genes for dark skin migrated to warmer climates where their skin complexion was of greater help and aid to them.

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of people could come from the same human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair ( i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue), but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct and organize molecules to form into more cells. The question is how did life come into being when there was no directing mechanism in Nature. An excellent article to read by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish is "A Few Reasons An Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible" (http://icr.org/article/3140/).

The author's article "Textbook Biology's Origin of Life Deception" may be accessed at: http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/opinion-textbook-biologys-origin-life-deception.

There is, of course, much more to be said on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues ( i.e. fossils, "transitional" links, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc.) at greater depth on his website at www.creationscience.com.

On his website, Dr. Brown even discusses the possibility of any remains of life on Mars as having originated from the Earth due to great geological disturbances in the Earth's past which easily could have spewed thousands of tons of rock and dirt containing microbes into space. In fact, A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

An excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) in San Diego, California. Also, the reader may find answers to many difficult questions concerning the Bible (including questions on creation and evolution, Noah's Ark, how dinosaurs fit into the Bible, etc.)at www.ChristianAnswers.net.

God, Heaven, and Sex (4th edition)

2010-04-03T15:49:00.021-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Will there be sexual relations in heaven? Some say "No" because Jesus says in Matthew 22:30 that we will be like the angels. But, in the context of what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 22:30, what Jesus meant is that we will be like the angels in that there will be no marriage in heaven. A question was given to Jesus concerning a woman who had several husbands in her lifetime (each husband having died and the woman outliving them all). The question given to Jesus was who will be the woman's husband at the resurrection since she had several husbands. Jesus responds by saying, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30, KJV). There won't be marriage in heaven. That was the simple point Jesus was making. That doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be sexual relations in heaven. Marriage is required for sex only on earth. Heaven is another issue.

In heaven no one will belong exclusively to one person, and there will be no building of families in heaven as marriage involves. Only in this sense will we be like the angels because angels do not marry. But, we will not be like the angels in every other sense. For example, the Bible teaches that we will continue to be able to eat and enjoy food in our resurrected bodies. After His resurrection, Jesus Himself ate and drank with the disciples. Jesus said that in the future Kingdom He would enjoy wine with His disciples again. Angels, on the other hand, are strictly spirit beings and don't eat food and consume drink.

On earth sex is reserved for only within marriage, but that doesn't mean that sex in heaven must require marriage. In this life sex within marriage also is a test of faithfulness, but in heaven no such test is necessary for only the faithful will be there. There is no logical reason for why there won't be sex in heaven. If other bodily enjoyments like eating and drinking will be there then, most certainly, it is reasonable to expect that there will be sexual enjoyment in heaven. If there is sex in heaven it will be driven spiritually and by perfect love. It will not be driven by lust or the body and, yet, it will be more enjoyable for soul and body than any sex on earth. It is not something that we can now imagine in our fallen, selfish, and sinful state.

Human sexuality is so powerful because it is not only for reproduction. Human sexuality has meaning beyond marriage and having children. Seniors have sex beyond child-bearing years! Animals only have sex during mating season and only for reproductive purposes. Animals don't have sex all the time, but humans beings do. Human sexuality involves communication of the spirit, soul and body.

Perhaps, in heaven couples will have sexual and intimate relations with one another for a period of time (if we can call it "time") and then move on into new relationships with others and so on. In Genesis, the Bible describes the sexual relationship between Adam and Eve as involving the soul. We read in Genesis 4:1 "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived ..." Adam knew his wife. To know someone involves the soul, the mind. This is how the Bible describes sex. In human sexuality, where there is trust and love, the mind and emotions are involved in the physical relationship between a man and woman.

Human sexuality is a deep hunger of the soul as well as body, involving communication of soul to soul as well as that of body to body, and this is so because the communication involved in human sexuality is an expression of the essence and nature of God. Human sexuality involves romance and foreplay. Read the Old Testament Book "Song of Solomon" and you cannot but conclude that the book portrays in poetic metaphors, image, and language the human sexual foreplay between a husband and wife. Certainly such love, romance, and sexual foreplay don't reflect sexual activity in the animal kingdom.

The Bible teaches in Genesis that God created Adam and Eve in His image and that the image involves maleness and femaleness (Genesis 1:26-27). God's image is not limited to sexuality but sexuality is partly involved in making up that image. Some say that the image of God cannot include sexuality because animals also have male and female sexuality. But, again, animal sexuality and human sexuality are universes apart. Animal sexuality only involves reproduction. Human sexuality involves communication of the spirit and soul as well as that of the body. In the New Testament the human sexual union itself between a husband and wife is used as a picture of Christ's spiritual relationship with the Church, the body of all true believers in Christ (Ephesians 5:31-32).

Doesn't Scripture say that God's image has to do with His moral righteousness and nature? Yes, but, as someone has said, it is not an "either or" situation. Again, God's image is not restricted to sexuality only nor to His moral perfections and righteousness only. Depending on the context of Scripture, God's image may involve sexuality or to His moral perfections and righteousness. Even if it is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture that God is a sexual Being or that His nature involves both male and female sexuality, it is most certainly implied (i.e. Genesis 1:27).

In Genesis 5:2 we read "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created" (KJV). Notice that both the male and female were called "Adam" by God. Eve was taken out of Adam for Eve had already existed within Adam. The Bible teaches that God finished His creation on the seventh day which means that Eve, including her soul, must have existed in Adam since Eve was formed after creation week. The original Adam was both male and female.

The Bible expresses God as having both feminine and masculine characteristics. For example, sometimes God is pictured in Scripture as being nurturing as a mother. Both masculine and feminine are complementary not contradictory. It is the communication of give and take involved between male and female. Within God this give and take is perfect without selfishness or sin. Within God's nature is both male and female. God is both. God has a fully male psyche and a fully female psyche in perfect complementary balance.

Why, then, does God refer to Himself as "He" in Scripture? One reason for why God mostly identifies with the male role is because, after the fall of Adam and Eve, God had designed for the man to be the head of the household. Positionally, Eve was not put under Adam's authority until after the Fall (original sin). She was put under Adam's authority because she was the first to sin. Because of sin and the selfishness that comes from sin there cannot exist two equal heads of a household. For the better or worse one has to be in charge and be accountable for the whole family. Genesis is clear that only after Eve and Adam sinned was Eve put, positionally, under Adam's authority, although both are equally created in God's image and stand equally in worth and value before Him.

The Bible teaches that there will be both spiritual and bodily enjoyment in heaven. For example, Psalm 16:11 tells us that in God's presence there will be fullness of joy (this is spiritual) and at God's right hand there will be pleasures (plural) forevermore (pleasure is something experienced physically).

We must distinguish between selfishness and what I call "selfness". Selfishness is sin because it involves wrong motives. Selfness, however, is not sin. When you want to enjoy good food it is not sin, but when you let the enjoyment of food control you then that is sin. Just because you want something for yourself does not mean you are being selfish. God wants us to love ourselves and others but in the right way.

In the Bible there are various things we call "types" because they picture spiritual things, but that doesn't mean they are limited only to the spiritual realm. Jesus said eating bread and drinking wine are a type of communion with Him spiritually. Jesus was not talking about eating His physical body and blood. He Himself said in John 6:63 that He was talking spiritually when He talked about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

When we, who know Christ as our personal Lord and Savior, are finally with Him then the full spiritual meaning of eating bread and drinking wine during communion will be fully realized or fulfilled, but that doesn't mean because the type is fulfilled in heaven that there won't be anymore eating and drinking. Even Jesus said that He would drink the fruit of the vine with His disciples in the Kingdom.

The Bible says that we do all things in life for the glory of God, even our eating and drinking, and, yes, our sex too. In this sense everything is spiritual because it is done with God in mind. When God is given thanks for the food we eat then eating and enjoying that food has a spiritual component. That's what is meant by glorifying God in all we do.

Only when the image of God that exists in both sexes is realized and respected then, truly, both men and women will have respect for each other in all areas of relationships. Of course, God's image is more than sexuality. It also encompasses His righteousness, His moral nature, His creativity, intelligence, reasoning, emotions, and a host of other elements.

In our present humanity, because of sin, God's image has been corrupted but we still carry His image.

Because Jesus Christ, God's eternal and only begotten Son, paid the penalty for sin that we can never fully pay to redeem ourselves, and because He rose from the dead, through genuine faith in Christ we can be forgiven of our sins and enjoy, though imperfectly, the presence of God in our lives now and perfectly enjoy His presence and everything He has for us in heaven.

Just as a co-signer of a loan takes the legal responsibility of paying someone else's debt when the borrower defaults on the loan because the borrower can no longer afford to pay, so, too, Jesus Christ is mankind's co-signer before God the Father for the infinite debt we owe God because of our sins and that no amount of good works or rituals or anything we can do can fully pay. If we could get to heaven through the Ten Commandments then there was no need for Christ to come and die on the Cross for our sins. Genuine faith in Christ and love for God will produce good works in our lives and help us to follow the Ten Commandments even though not perfectly. No one, in this life, can perfectly fulfill the Ten Commandments in thought, word, and deed.

Enjoy God, my friend, and some day everything and all enjoyment, physical as well as spiritual, will be yours for eternity. The Bible says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16, KJV).

Below are a few Internet sources that the reader will find extremely helpful concerning the subject of God's image and human sexuality:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sexnheaven.html

http://ldolphin.org/Image.html

All True Evolution Pre-Existed!

2010-04-03T15:48:00.010-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

We all carry in our bodies expressed and unexpressed genes. For example, a husband and wife couple who both have black hair produce a child with blond hair. Would you call that evolution? Where did the blond hair come from? Obviously, the couple with black hair also were carrying genes for blond hair. The genes for blond hair did not evolve. The genes for blond hair already existed in the couple. However, the genes for blond hair were not expressed in the couple carrying them. Only the genes for black hair were expressed in the couple. Eventually, the genes for blond hair would be expressed in a child they brought into the world.

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties or "races" of people could come from the same original human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair ( i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair. Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue), but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

The genes must first exist or otherwise the evolution cannot occur. All real evolution simply is an expression over time of what already existed previously in the genetic pool of a population.

Evolution just doesn't happen. Something has to direct the formation and transformation of biological matter for evolution to occur. That something is what we call genes. Genes are located on the DNA molecule (the genetic code). DNA is the abbreviated name for the genetic code and it is exactly that - a code. It is a molecular string of chemical information.

DNA is located in the nucleus of our cells and is made up of smaller molecules called nucleic acids. These smaller molecules in DNA are arranged in a sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. The sequence of these nucleic acids tell the cells in our body how to build our nose, eyes, hands, feet, and everything else. If the sequence for a particular trait isn't in our genetic code then our bodies won't build it. If the sequence for producing wings is not in the genetic code of an animal then that animal will not develop wings regardless of the environment. Many people have wrong ideas about evolution.

For example, in November of 2004, articles appeared in major U.S. newspapers saying that running may have contributed to the evolution of man.

The simple fact is that physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes - not by running or any other form of exercise. Any physical changes from exercises that are performed do not affect the genes and will not be passed on. For example, you cannot pass on a sun tan to your offspring even if you could live thousands of years in a tropical country getting a nice dark tan under the hot blazing sun. Traits or characteristics which are acquired from the environment simply cannot be passed on to offspring (i.e. a woman who loses her finger will not cause her baby to be born with a missing finger; changing the color and texture of your hair will not affect the color and texture of your children's hair. Even if an ape ever did learn to walk and run upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Only the changes that occur in the genes (genetic information) of reproductive cells ( i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring. That is a simple fact of biology.

How come we find dark people as natives in tropical countries? Obviously those in humanity who inherited genes for dark skin migrated to warmer climates where their skin complexion was of greater help and aid to them. Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection is a passive process in nature. Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce biological traits or variations. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any conscious or active selection. If a biological variation occurs which helps a member of a species to survive in its environment then that biological variation will be preserved and be passed on to future offspring. That is what we call natural selection.

Adaptation is the result of natural selection. Let's imagine, for example, that all humans only have black hair, but the environment changed so that only humans with red hair can survive. Some of the black-haired humans also are carrying unexpressed genes for red hair. Over time some children are born with red hair. The red-haired ones survive (are "selected") while all the black-haired ones die off. The red-haired children will ensure that the human species will continue to exist under the new and changed environment. That's biological adaptation!

So, natural selection is just another way of saying "Survival of the Fittest". But, this is exactly the problem for the Darwinian theory of macro-evolution. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset. The only evolution in nature that is possible and that can really be called science is micro-evolution, which is variations within biological kinds such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses and cows. Only micro-evolution is observable and can be measured by the scientific method.

Macro-evolution, which teaches that variations in life can occur across biological kinds, is not science but faith.

The genes exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution, and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Random forces in nature have no ability to perform genetic engineering so as to bring about entirely new genes.

Mutations produce only variations of already existing genes. They do not produce entirely new genes.

Random genetic mutations caused by environmental forces will not produce entirely new genes anymore than randomly changing the sequences of letters in a cookbook will change it into a book on astronomy.

What about “Junk DNA”? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA” isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

Mathematical probability alone has shown how utterly irrational, illogical, and unscientific it is to believe in macro-evolution even if given trillions times trillions times trillions of years!

Evolutionists have nothing else to rely on except random genetic mutations caused by random forces of the environment, such as radiation, to make their theory work. Genetic similarities between species are no proof of common biological ancestry because it cannot be proved that these similarities are due to a common biological ancestry via chance mutations.

What if the similarities between species are due to a common designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes? Only genetic similarities within a biological kind can be used as proof of relationship.

It is not rational to believe that genetic information can come about by chance (i.e. random mutations) so it is much more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between species are because of a common designer rather than common ancestry. The Creator designed similar genes and biological functions for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life. God was the first genetic engineer! Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Again, how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet? The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species.

There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry. In fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human. Yet, many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The "Nebraska Man" was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

For a more comprehensive article, please read the author's Internet essay "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at: www.religionscience.com

Excellent articles and resources by scientists who are creationists may be accessed at: www.icr.org and www.creationscience.com

Souls Not Created At Conception

2010-04-03T15:48:00.008-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

It is a mystery, but our souls, our very persons, existed before conception. God is not creating new souls for a new body every time at conception, as many believe. God's creative works, at least as a rule, were finished on the Seventh Day of creation week as recorded in Genesis. Everything that exists now, body as well as soul, existed in some form since that day. After creation week, the Bible says that God "rested" (or ceased) from anymore creative activity. Thus, we literally existed in some form from the time of Adam for we were all in Adam.

Reproductive cells (i.e. sperm and ovum) come from somatic cells. That means we must have existed in the somatic cells of our parents' bodies at some point. I admit, this is a great mystery. Does this mean we commit murder when we intentionally destroy the somatic cells of our body. Are we committing murder if we destroy somatic cells by scratching our nose? No. For God has not given humans the right to independent life apart from when such life actually develops (such as during conception) for that is the means by which He has sanctioned for bringing independent human life into the world.

What if we should clone a human being? Cloning is wrong. That is not how God intended humans to come into the world, but successful human cloning would be proof that the soul exists before and apart from conception. The soul may also be physical (perhaps a form of energy) but distinct from the rest of the body. Nevertheless, if we should ever succeed in cloning a human being then that human life also has equal right to become independent since the process towards full maturity has begun. This is why abortion is wrong morally, and abortion also should be wrong legally because the unborn baby's right to life outweighs a woman's right of privacy. To kill someone else whom God has given an inalienable right to life should never be a personal choice and definitely should not be supported by public or federal funds.

We have succeeded in cloning animals and animals have souls, though not created in the image of God. The same Hebrew word "soul" that is used for man is used in reference to animals in Genesis, but the translators used the word "living" instead of "soul" because they wanted to emphasize the distinction between humans and animals. Other portions of Scripture teach that animals, as well as man, have spirit. Putting it all together, then, both animals and man have spirit, soul, and body with the difference being that man is created in the image of God. Non-conscious life, vegetation, etc. have bios (life) but not soul or spirit.

These are great mysteries. Scripture says, in the New Testament Book of Hebrews, that Aaron was already in Abraham's loins when Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek. We cannot go further than what God's Word allows. The secret things, indeed, belong to God.

Indian Origin of Egyptian Civilization

2010-04-03T15:47:00.000-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

The ancient Egyptians in their writings described that they had come "from the South", and from a land which was reached by crossing the Great Sea, a land which they called "Punt". Some have said "Punt" refers to ancient Somalia but this cannot be for various reasons, among them being the fact that the description of the animals and plants given by the ancient Egyptians as being native to the land of Punt match only with that of the southwestern coast of India (known as Malabar). Also, Somalia doesn't lie across any great sea.

There is, in fact, considerable archaeological and anthropological evidence that ancient India was the source of ancient Egyptian civilization. The ancient black Indians, known as "Dravidians", (who in ancient times were also known by the Greeks and Egyptians as "Ethiopians") built and laid out ancient Egyptian civilization and, no doubt, in the process also mixed with their black brethren in Africa. The ancient Egyptians, themselves, admitted in their writings that they received their civilization and culture from the Ethiopians, another black "race".

In ancient times there were known to be two types of Ethiopians, Western Ethiopians, in Africa, (who were black with woolly hair and fine features) and their brethren, the Eastern Ethiopians, of India, who also were black with fine features but possessed straight hair. Both Western and Eastern Ethiopians were descended from the biblical Cush, one of the sons of Ham. An excellent website offering substantial scholarship and historical documentation and evidence that ancient India was the source of Egypt's ancient culture and civilization is "India and Egypt": http://www.hinduwisdom.info/India_and_Egypt.htm.

In ancient times, India was inhabited by various people, the Aryans, Dravidians, Veddoids (also known as Australoids), and Negritos. Today, the majority of India's population is a mixture of both Aryan and Dravidian with pure Aryans mainly in the extreme North and pure Dravidians mainly in the extreme South. The Veddoids mainly live in the hill regions of India and the Negritos mainly live off coast in the Andaman and Nicobar islands.

Contrary to decades old popular belief, a plethora of evidence now shows that the Aryans did not invade India from the outside but were all along native to India along with other ethnicities or races. Technically, "Aryan" and "Dravidian" are linguistic groups and not necessarily races. An excellent website providing useful information on this is: http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/aryan-invasion.html.

India contributed tremendously to Western civilization. Many don't realize that Western mathematics originated in India. The so-called "Arabic" numerals and the very concept of using zero as a place value in mathematics were invented by the people of India and borrowed by the Arabs as well as Chinese. Because the Europeans borrowed their mathematics directly from the Arabs they became known as "Arabic" numerals, but they originated in India. Without the decimal system that India created and which was borrowed by the West, via the Arabs, Western science and technology would not have been possible. The ancient Roman numerals would not have sufficed. The Arabs borrowed much of their sciences and mathematics from India and transmitted them to the West. More and more textbooks on mathematics now are mentioning India as the original source of Western mathematics.

Today Egypt is referred to as an Arab nation, but this is only because the Arabs conquered Egypt centuries ago and imposed upon the original people their Arab language, culture and Moslem religion. Many modern Egyptians of today are really the descendants of Arab, Persian, Greek, and other non-African peoples that entered into Egypt over the many centuries. The ancient or original Egyptians, however, were of African or Black (Negroid) descent, and this is still mostly true of the bulk of Egypt's rural population, especially in the south. Long before the Arabs invaded and conquered Egypt the famous and ancient Greek historian Herodotus (who is known as the Father of History) visited Egypt and wrote concerning the Egyptians: "They have burnt skin, flat noses, thick lips, and woolly hair" (Herodotus, Book II, p. 100, translated by George Rawlinson, New York: Tudor, 1928). Readers may wish to obtain the book "Return To Glory" (http://truthcentric.com/). The book, written by white author and professional speaker Joel F. Freeman, discusses the historical and archaeological evidences for ancient black Egyptian civilization.

It is often asked how all the varieties of humans could have descended Adam and Eve and, particularly, from Noah's three sons Ham, Shem, and Japheth. Obviously, Noah and his three sons Ham, Shem, and Japheth each carried the genes for producing several races since ultimately all the races of mankind had descended from them. Genetically, it was possible for Noah and his three sons to carry the genes for producing different races just as it is genetically possible today, for example, for a person of European origin to carry genes for producing children with different color hair. The principle is the same. Although you and I today may not possess genes for producing different races of people, Noah and his three sons Ham, Shem, and Japheth did possess such genes.

Contrary to popular belief by some, black skin is not a curse. Ham (which means "black") was given that name by his father Noah before there was any curse pronounced by Noah. Furthermore, Noah had never cursed Ham himself but, rather, Ham's son Canaan. And even that curse wasn't eternal or perpetual because the Bible tells us that a curse lasts for only a few generations. A more comprehensive treatment of this subject may be found in my article "Negro Slavery and The Myth of Ham's Curse" at www.religionscience.com.

Black skin protects from the harmful effects of ultraviolet light. In fact, all human skin color is brown. The skin pigment that gives color to all skin is melanin which is brown. Whites have the least amount of melanin in their skin and that's why they appear "white". Only albinos (those born with no melanin because of genetic defect and mutation) are purely white and in most danger from harmful effects of the Sun's rays. Instead of black skin being a "curse" it is a healthful blessing for those living in year round hot climates.

We are all from the same parents, created equally in God's image, and in Christ equally His children and whatever we possess and whatever good and progress any in the human race have done or accomplished is by the Creator's undeserving free grace, for His rightful glory and for our benefit and the benefit of others.

Society Rights Vs. Capitalism's Rights

2010-04-03T15:46:00.007-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Many in society have been taught to believe that the public has no right to tell corporations what to do with their money any more than a private citizen has the right to tell his neighbor what to do with the money he earns from his business or store. This is not a fair analogy.

True enough that a private citizen doesn't have the right to tell his neighbor what to do with his money but the public does have the right to tell corporations what to do with their money. Why? Because corporations couldn't exist without government and, in the case of democracies at least, the authority of our government comes from the people, the majority. The people own the franchise of government! Corporations are special legal entities that have rights, privileges, and protections given by government that ordinary and individual business owners do not have.

Therefore, the public has a right to demand something from corporations in exchange for giving corporations the right to exist. Would I not have the right, even as a private citizen, to demand something from a business built on my property? The same logic applies to the relationship between the public (society) and corporations. Corporations cannot hide behind the specious argument of rugged individualism!

Many in our society have been brainwashed to believe that an absolutely free market place with no government controls or regulations would automatically fix our nation's problems. Have we forgotten already that the Great Depression of the early 1930's was the direct result of a free market economy with no government control or regulation?

In rugged individualism, the individual has the right to benefit from social and economic interactions with society, but society has no right to demand any benefit from the individual.

However, if it is true that a person has a moral right to be a rugged individualist, looking out only for himself, then it also follows that individuals (plural), by mutual agreement, have a moral right to look out for themselves. Such a moral right of individuals (plural) is the basis for majority rule and unions in our society.

Certainly, if an individual is benefiting from commerce with the many individuals of society, then the many individuals of society have a right, by mutual agreement among themselves, to demand certain benefits from the individual, benefits such as decent wages, clean air, clean water, safe working conditions, safe products, etc.

If capitalism and social consciousness cannot coexist then one wonders how modern industrialized nations such as Sweden, Norway, and Denmark can have a high degree of social consciousness and still be competitively advanced economically and technologically with the United States.

The rich are not paying their fair share of the taxes. Even billionaire Warren Buffet has said that his office secretary pays more in taxes in proportion to her income than he does.

In fact, one of Senator Obama's ideas for reviving our economy is by the federal government spending money to repair the infrastructure in our country (roads, bridges, highways, etc.). Much of this money would come from taxing the wealthy and corporations and making them pay their fair share of the taxes.

People can still become wealthy in a socialist society but not at the detrimental expense of others in society.

The fact is there is no rugged individualist in society!

Many of the basic rights, especially regarding safety in the work place, that we take for granted were not graciously given to society by the rich but won by the blood of bludgeoned workers and strikers in the early twentieth century.

The Bible doesn't say that money is the root of all evil, but that the love of money is the root of all evil. That love of money must be constrained in society or the worst aspects of capitalism will make a living hell for millions. Thank God, of course, that there are some capitalists who don't put money first or love money. God bless them!

The Christian Scriptures have much to say against the rich and wealthy who obtain and maintain their wealth through the detriment of the rest of society (James 2: 6, 7; 5: 1-6).

What is Separation of Church and State?

2010-04-03T15:46:00.001-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

There is a wrong definition of separation of church and state and there is a right definition of separation of church and state. Some of my fellow believers will argue that there is no such thing as separation of church and state at all because such language is not found in the Constitution of the United States. That's like arguing that the Bible doesn't teach the doctrine of the Trinity because the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. The important thing is that the meaning or concept is there even if the word isn't there. For example, we know that Israel in the Old Testament was a theocracy (which means a nation ruled by God), but the word "theocracy" is not found in the Old Testament.

The U.S. Constitution simply says that Congress cannot establish religion or prevent the free exercise thereof. In the context of our country's history, the writings of our founding fathers, and the Constitution itself, all that this means is that there can be no state church. In other words, people or citizens of the United States cannot be forced to belong to any particular religion or particular Christian denomination. It doesn't mean that religious beliefs cannot be held or expressed by persons in politics or government.

Someone's personal beliefs will always be expressed in politics and government whether those beliefs are religious or not. What right does the atheist have to express his or her personal beliefs in politics and government but yet deny this same right to those of faith? Someone's personal beliefs will always influence public policy. People of faith should not be excluded from expressing and influencing public policy anymore than atheists and agnostics should be prevented from expressing and influencing public policy with their beliefs.

The key is a delicate balance and a respect for all within a rightful context. Minorities have rights but so do majorities. In this politically correct society of ours the rights of majorities are being totally ignored and trampled upon!

Christians and Apostasy: A Fresh Look At Hebrews 6

2010-04-03T15:45:00.005-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

This is a very complex topic. However, I hope the Christian reader will find the brief article below helpful and useful.

In 1 Timothy 1:19-20 Paul tells us that certain Christians who committed apostasy will remain saved but not escape judgment here on Earth. Paul says, in the passage, that he delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander, who had shipwrecked their faith (committed apostasy), to Satan so that that THEY WILL LEARN NOT TO BLASPHEME. The Apostle is saying that they would come again to repentance because they would learn not to blaspheme. God will use Satan to discipline them, and God only disciplines His true children. God leaves reprobates alone!

Christians may commit apostasy and still be saved but they will not escape God's fiery judgment here on Earth. After judgment they will come to renewal of repentance but not before!

In Hebrews 6, the Apostle was telling certain Christians that they were in danger of their hearts becoming so hardened that they would not be able to repent before they are judged. The Apostle gives an example towards the end of Hebrews 6 of how land that does not bear fruit will be burned of its weeds, thorns, etc. The land itself will not be destroyed and may afterwards become profitable to produce fruit. The Jews were known, in ancient times, to burn land that only produced weeds, thorns, etc, so that it may be used afresh again. Obviously, the use of the word "land" represents Christians (believers). He wasn't saying it was impossible altogether for apostate Christians to repent. In context, the Apostle was simply saying that it would be impossible for apostate Christians to come to repentance before they experience fiery trial and judgment for their apostasy. (These thoughts were gleaned from reading The Bible Knowledge Commentary a work of the Dallas Theological Seminary faculty)

But, doesn't Scripture say that we're kept by faith? How, then, can an apostate Christian still be saved when he has shipwrecked that faith?

The Apostle Paul said, "For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day" (2 Timothy 1:12).

Paul was talking about everything concerning him, not just his ministry, but also his soul, his faith. That is true of every true of every true believer. Notice the word “committed.” It’s in the past tense. So, even if a Christian shipwrecks his faith, the faith that he once committed to God, will be kept by God and keep the Christian from utterly failing, even if it means severe judgment before bringing the Christian back to repentance.

There are passages in Scripture (1 Corinthians 3) that teach some Christians will enter heaven by the skin of their teeth - no rewards or anything! Christians can be in danger of that!

There are various passages in Scripture that teach there are differences between those who are truly Christian and those who just profess to be Christian. This is why the Apostle John says in his epistles "They went out from us because they were not of us" (1 John 2:19). They were never true Christians to begin with. So, that's another possibility to consider. Some who commit apostasy may never have been truly saved at all!

The Bible clearly teaches that true Christians can never lose their salvation (Romans 8: 29-30). There are many Scripture passages that clearly teach this particular truth and theme of God's sovereign grace in salvation.

It is the obedience of Christ that is irrevocably imputed to those whom God the Father by His sovereign grace chose in Christ from before the foundation of the world. It is because of Christ's obedience that the genuine faith of His children, even if that faith be dormant at times, will not ultimately fail and cannot fail. Scripture says the "gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Romans 11:29). The context in Romans 11 has to do with God's sovereign and unconditional election. For Christ's sake, and for His sake only, none of His can or will ever perish.

God not only ordains the ends but He also ordains the means by which those ends are accomplished. God ordains our salvation and also ordains that our salvation be kept through faith. The initial deposit of faith upon conversion is what God uses to reserve for us a place in glory. Later our faith may become dormant, even possibly shipwrecked, and may be in need of restoration, but it is that initial deposit of faith that is the basis of God "keeping us" unto the day of salvation.

An excellent example from Scripture of how God works through His ordained means to accomplish His ordained ends is provided by the great Reformed theologian Arthur W. Pink in his book "The Sovereignty of God". Below I express, in my own words, Pink's thoughts on the matter.

We know that no one could take the life of Jesus before it was His time. Then why did God tell Mary and Joseph to flee to Egypt so that Jesus would not be killed by Herod? If Jesus could not die before His time then how could Herod kill Him? Why even escape to Egypt if no one could take Jesus' life before His time? Ah, but you see God ordained that means of escape to Egypt to accomplish His ordained ends of keeping Jesus alive until it was His time to go to the Cross. Great mysteries are these!

I highly recommend to all readers Arthur W. Pink's classic Christian work "The Sovereignty of God" published by The Banner of Truth Trust. Next to the Bible this is the best, most God glorifying, and spiritually profitable and useful Christian book to read!

I truly hope all will read my article "Understanding God and Predestination" at:

http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com/2010/04/understanding-god-and-predestination.html

*The author graciously acknowledges two main sources of bibliography in the writing of this article: "The Tyndale New Testament Commentary" on the Book of Hebrews" and "The Bible Knowledge Commentary" on the Book of Hebrews".

Understanding God and Predestination (Second Edition)

2010-04-03T15:44:00.030-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

How do we as Christians reconcile the freedom of man's will with God's sovereign and unmerited grace in salvation? Many Christians will give God all the credit and glory for the payment of their sins at Calvary but when it comes to believing in Christ they give themselves either all or some of the credit and glory. This issue, therefore, needs serious Biblical examining.

The will is only as free as its nature. For example, God has free will but He cannot choose to do evil since it is contrary to His nature. The Scripture says in Hebrews 6:18 that it is impossible for God to lie. God cannot even want to lie or do evil. In 1 John 1:5 we read that "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all." God isn't a robot just because He doesn't have the free will to do evil!

Are you going to say a fish in the sea isn't free because it can't live on the land? A fish is only as free as its nature. God is only as free as His nature. Man is as only free as his nature. None of these are robots just because they don't have an absolutely free will. That robot example Arminians use is way over done!

But, doesn't Scripture say "All things are possible with God" (i.e. Matthew 19:26)? How can both be true? How can it be impossible for God to lie and, yet, all things be possible with God? The word "all" must be understood in the over-all context of Scripture. The Bible doesn't explain itself. We must compare Scripture with Scripture and study carefully the context of all of Scripture. What the Bible is teaching is that all things which are not contrary to God's nature are possible with Him. So, there is no real contradiction.

Fallen man has free will but he cannot choose God on God's terms. Fallen man is free to choose God on man's terms, but in order for an individual to choose God on God's terms that individual must first receive a new nature, a new heart - he must be born again, otherwise he cannot want God on God's terms.

The Apostle Paul said to Timothy that he was persuaded that Timothy had "unfeigned" faith (2 Timothy 1:5). The word "unfeigned" means "genuine." Thus, it is not simply enough to have faith in Christ for salvation, but Scripture teaches that faith must be genuine. Only genuine faith in Christ will save. Our motives for believing must be right. Tell me whose free will has the ability to control one's motives. The natural man cannot ever have spiritual motives that are Godward. He must be born again in order to have such motives.

The Bible teaches that the carnal mind is enmity with God and cannot even be subject to God (Romans 8:7). Before a person is born again that is all that he has - a carnal mind which is only free to think, will, and desire carnal things including carnal religion. God must choose to save a person and give him new birth before such a person can ever desire God on God's terms.

Romans 11:5-6 teaches that election (God's choosing those who would be saved) is by grace, that is it is not based on our works. God didn't choose those who would be saved because they would choose Him, but, rather, we who are saved chose God because He chose us by His grace in Christ before the foundation of the world.

Doesn't Romans 8:29 teach that God chose those whom He foreknew would choose Him? No!That is not what the verse teaches. The verse does not say "Whom God foreknew would choose Him ..." The verse says "Those God foreknew He also predestined ..." What the verse is saying, in context, is that those whom God knew intimately and personally even before they were born God predestined to be saved. The word "know" or "knew" here has an intimate connotation. Just as God said to Jeremiah in the Old Testament "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5). Yes, God knows everything, but it's not in that sense that the word "foreknow" is being used here in Romans 8:29.

In Scripture God's foreknowledge also has the meaning of His design or plan, not just that He knows beforehand what will happen. The Book of Acts says that Christ was crucified according to the "determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23). Thus, God's foreknowledge was the primary cause of Christ's crucifixion because the Father planned and designed for His Son to be crucified.

If God's choosing us was based upon our choosing Him then we have something to glory in, but we don't have anything to glory in because Romans 11 teaches that God elected (chose us) for salvation by His grace. Election was unconditional. God's choosing us to be saved was not based on any condition in us or from us. The Biblical fact is if we are truly saved then we chose God because He chose us. That is what makes the doctrine of election precious. Of course, God knew that we who are saved would choose Him but He only knew that because He had already chosen us (predestined us) to choose Him!

Jesus says in John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out." And we read in Acts 13:48 "For as many as were ordained (predestined) to eternal life believed." Only those chosen in Christ by God the Father will ever truly and genuinely believe and trust in Christ for salvation.

He died for His sheep, not only for His sheep in Israel, but for His gentile sheep in every tribe and nation of the world. It's in that sense He died for the world. Those whom He died for cannot go to hell otherwise they would be paying a double price. If He truly died and paid for someone's sins then how can that someone go to hell and pay a debt that was already paid on his behalf.

A co-signer to a loan is legally responsible for paying the debt of the person whom he legally stands in the place of in case the borrower defaults in his payment. Once the co-signer pays the bank can no longer go after the borrower!

In Romans 5 we read that the First Adam represented the whole human race, and when he fell the whole human race fell with him and inherited a sinful nature, but the Second Adam (Christ) represented all those for whom He died and all of them will one day be saved. An excellent book to read is "The Sovereignty of God" by A.W. Pink. Pink addresses controversial questions such as the Scripture passage "God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance". The context of that verse is found in reading the whole passage which says "God is longsuffering to usward (i.e. His elect), not willing that any (of His elect) should perish but that all (of His elect) should come to repentance."

Even the words "all" and "every" in Scripture must be understood in their context. Sometimes in Scripture the word "all" means every single person and at other times it means all kinds (i.e. Jew, Gentile, every tribe and people, etc.) or everyone in a particular category such as when Paul says in Romans 5 that "all will be saved.” Obviously, Paul didn't mean every single person but the “all” whom Christ died for through His substitutionary sacrifice. Christ died for His elect only, Jew and Gentile, from every nation.

If Christ paid for everyone's sins then no one should go to hell because that would mean a double payment on the debt. If you owe a million dollars in debt and someone paid that debt for you then you shouldn't have to owe that debt anymore by having to pay a million dollars yourself.

Yes, we have to personally believe in Christ to be saved, but that is guaranteed because Scripture teaches in Romans 8:29 that all whom He predestined will believe.

Now, I truly believe God wants every single person on earth to be saved but His sovereign (or effectual) will is to save only His elect (from every nation and tribe, both Jew and Gentile) whom He chose in Christ by His unconditional, unmerited and undeserving grace from before the foundation of the world for the purpose of glorifying His grace that no flesh may glory in His presence.

In John 3:16, when our Lord said, "whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life," in the context of Scripture what He meant by the word "whosoever" is "Jew or Gentile." The Jews thought salvation was meant only for them. Christ corrected that by saying that salvation was for the world, for all nations and tribes. For we read in other Scriptures that Christ has His sheep, His elect, chosen by God's grace, in every nation and tribe. This is what Christ meant when He said to the Jews "I have other sheep" (John 10:16). By "other" He meant His elect Gentile sheep in other nations.

2 Corinthians 5:19 says, "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." The word "world" here has to mean His elect, His sheep, because it says that their sins were not imputed to them. The only ones in the world who don't have their sins imputed to them are Christians, so by the word "world" He must be talking about His elect, His sheep in every nation, who, by God's grace, will one day become Christians, believers, through the preaching of the Gospel.

The Kingdom of God is spiritual. Jesus Himself said so when He said "the Kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21). The Kingdom of God is not a physical place. So, when Christ said that "Except a man be born again, He cannot see the Kingdom of God" (John 3:3), by definition He could not be talking about seeing the physical beauties of heaven. He was teaching spiritual truths about the Kingdom through His parables. So, the word "see" in John 3:3 cannot be referring to physical sight. Again, in the Greek, the word for "see" in John 3:3 has the meaning of "understand." Just like when you ask someone, "Do you see (understand) what I've been saying?"

The new birth is necessary before a person can see (understand) the Kingdom of God. This understanding of the Kingdom begins with a person really seeing his sin (not in a mere intellectual way, but knowing and feeling his deep sinfulness, his utter wretchedness, and being truly, genuinely sorry for his sin and looking outside of Himself to God alone for His salvation). I'm talking about genuine sorrow. Judas was sorry for his sin but not genuinely. Judas was only bothered by the guilt of his sin. There was no true sorrow over the sin accompanying his guilt. Peter, on the other hand, after he denied the Lord had both guilt and true sorrow over his sin.

Until a person is born again, he only has a sinful nature. How could that sinful nature produce true faith in Christ? If the sinful nature could produce true repentance and faith in Christ, then why receive a new nature at all? Why be born again? The sinful nature would then be good enough to live the entire Christian life by faith!

Where in the Bible does it say we need to have genuine faith? In 2 Timothy 1:5 the Apostle Paul says, "When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also." The word "unfeigned" in the passage means "sincere," "genuine." Only genuine faith in Christ saves. The old nature cannot produce true faith in Christ. Only the new nature, given and directed by the Holy Spirit can produce true and genuine faith in Christ.

There are other passages in Scripture teaching that true and genuine faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. The sinful nature can produce false faith in Christ but not true or genuine faith in Christ. That's only possible through the new birth.

In John 2: 23-24 says that some believed on Christ but were not saved because their faith was false, "Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men."

Does Hebrews 6 teach that a believer who becomes an apostate can't be brought back to repentance? No. Is it possible for a true believer to commit apostasy? Yes. And, such a one can be brought back to repentance. Hebrews 6 has been misinterpreted even by Calvinists.

Christians may commit apostasy and still be saved but they will not escape God's fiery judgment here on Earth. After judgment they will be able to come to renewal of repentance but not before!

In Hebrews 6, the Apostle was telling certain Christians that they were in danger of their hearts becoming so hardened that they would not be able to repent before they are judged. The Apostle gives an example towards the end of Hebrews 6 of how land that does not bear fruit will be burned of its weeds, thorns, etc. The land itself will not be destroyed and may afterwards become profitable to produce fruit. The Jews were known, in ancient times, to burn land that only produced weeds, thorns, etc, so that it may be used afresh again. Obviously, the use of the word "land" represents Christians (believers). He wasn't saying it was impossible altogether for apostate Christians to repent. In context, the Apostle was simply saying that it would be impossible for apostate Christians to come to repentance before they experience fiery trial and judgment for their apostasy. (These thoughts were gleaned from reading The Bible Knowledge Commentary a work of the Dallas Theological Seminary faculty).

In 1 Timothy 1:19-20 Paul tells us that certain Christians who committed apostasy will remain saved but not escape judgment here on Earth. Paul says, in the passage, that he delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander, who had shipwrecked their faith (committed apostasy), to Satan so that that THEY WILL LEARN NOT TO BLASPHEME. The Apostle is saying that they would come again to repentance because they would learn not to blaspheme. God will use Satan to discipline them, and God only disciplines His true children. God leaves reprobates alone! (Donal Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles from The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries).

But, doesn't Scripture say that we're kept by faith? How, then, can an apostate Christian still be saved when he has shipwrecked that faith?

The Apostle Paul said, "For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day" (2 Timothy 1:12).

Paul was talking about everything concerning him, not just his ministry, but also his soul, his faith. That is true of every true believer. Notice the word “committed.” It’s in the past tense. So, even if a Christian shipwrecks his faith, the faith that he once committed to God, will be kept by God and keep the Christian from utterly failing, even if it means severe judgment before bringing the Christian back to repentance.

There are various passages in Scripture that teach there are differences between those who are truly Christian and those who just profess to be Christian. This is why the Apostle John says in his epistles "They went out from us because they were not of us" (1 John 2:19). They were never true Christians to begin with. So, that's another possibility to consider. Some who commit apostasy may never have been truly saved at all!

There are passages in Scripture (1 Corinthians 3) that teach some Christians will enter heaven by the skin of their teeth - no rewards or anything! Christians can be in danger of that!

It is because of Christ's obedience and for His sake that the genuine faith of those who belong to Him, His children, His sheep, will not ultimately fail and cannot fail. Scripture says the "gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Romans 11:29). The context in Romans 11 has to do with God's sovereign and unconditional election. For Christ's sake, and for His sake only, none of His can or will ever perish.

How can fallen man be accountable or responsible to give God genuine faith if the ability is not there? Just as a bankrupt borrower is still morally obligated to pay his debt even though he cannot do so fallen man is under moral obligation to believe in Christ genuinely and spiritually as his Lord and Savior on God's terms even though he is spiritually bankrupt and unable to offer God such faith.

Then why preach the Gospel? Because God not only ordains (predestines) the ends but He also ordains (predestines) the means by which He accomplishes those ends. God has ordained the means of the preaching of the Gospel to save His elect, and He works in our hearts to will and to do of His good pleasure to accomplish His ordained ends. God is glorified by both the means and the ends He ordains.

Reformed author A.W. Pink makes an instructive point. Scripture says that no one was able to take the life of Jesus until it was His time. Then why did Joseph and Mary have to take the baby Jesus and flee to Egypt to save the Child's life from Herod? Ah, but this was God's appointed (ordained) means for preserving the life of His Son.

Scripture shows that God can have contrasting wills: one will that is non-sovereign (or non-effectual) and another will that is sovereign (or effectual) towards the same object. However, God cannot have two contrasting sovereign wills towards the same object.

For example, God says in Scripture that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezekiel 33:11), but we also know from Scripture concerning God that His counsel will stand and that He will do all His pleasure (or purpose) and that He works all things after the counsel of His Own will (Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11). Thus, from one perspective God does not desire (or will) the death of the wicked and this must be His non-sovereign (or non-effectual) will or otherwise the wicked would not have died in their sins, but we also know from other Scriptures that God wills or ordains the death of the wicked that He may be glorified in exercising His righteous power and judgment against evil and sin. This, then, is His sovereign (or effectual) will.

Although God's purpose is in everything He ordains, His heart is not. For example, God ordained evil (although He cannot do evil) but God's heart is not in the evil that He ordains. His purpose, however, is. Nothing can happen (including sin and evil) unless God ordains it because nothing can happen outside of His power and Scripture confirms this abundantly (i.e. Ephesians 1:11, Acts 17:28). Nothing can come into existence or continue in existence apart from God's power. Evil cannot and does not come from God's nature but God can use the evil in the nature of fallen humanity to accomplish His purposes.

How could evil originate by God's sovereign decree or will without God being the author of it? If God withdraws His grace then angel and man can do nothing but sin. Good is only possible by God's grace for God is the only source of good. God was not morally obligated to uphold Adam from morally and spiritually falling. When God's grace was withdrawn and Adam was left to himself then Adam instantly acquired an evil nature which could do nothing but sin. Again, although the evil nature in fallen men and angels exists and is directed by God's power, evil does not in any way originate from God's moral nature or being. In ordaining evil God is not doing evil. As absolute sovereign of the universe God has His rights. There is much mystery here, but the Scriptures unequivocally teach God as being absolutely sovereign over all His creation. God only ordained the existence of evil to serve His purposes not because He delights in evil or because it is a reflection of His nature.

A careful reading of Romans 9:22-23 shows the reason for God ordaining reprobation - so that He may make known the riches of His grace on the vessels of mercy which He ordained beforehand for glory. That reprobation glorifies God's justice is true but the primary reason given in Romans 9:22-23 for reprobation is so that the vessels of mercy may know - appreciate - the riches and depths of God's undeserved grace towards them.

In glory, when we the vessels of mercy experience perfectly and fully the happiness and joys of fellowship with God and all that He has to offer, we then will be utterly grateful and thankful to God that we were not the objects of His well-deserved destruction. We will perfectly value His undeserved salvation and all that comes with it.

We see again and again in Scripture that from one perspective God has one attitude but from another perspective He has a different attitude towards the same object. From one perspective He loves the same object but from another perspective He hates the same object. He even told us in certain cases to have such contrasting attitudes (i.e. In Scripture Jesus says we are to love our mother and father from one perspective but yet from another perspective He tells us whoever does not hate father and mother for His sake is not worthy to follow Him). God is not being egotistical. Truth demands that the Creator be the Center of our lives!

Of course, God has not given us the right to have every feeling, emotion, and intention that He possess in relation to others (i.e. Scripture teaches that vengeance for personal wrongs committed against us belong to God and not for us to take into our hands).

Finally, it should be understood that Hebrews 6 in Scripture was written to true and genuine believers but it does not teach that believers can lose their salvation through apostasy. Please read the author's article "Christians and Apostasy: A Fresh Look At Hebrews 6" at Babu G. Ranganathan's Articles on Religion and Science.

These are just some brief thoughts on the subject. The reader may find some excellent books in a Christian bookstore giving more in-depth analysis from Scripture. An excellent booklet and introduction to the subject of God's sovereign grace in salvation is "The Five Points of Calvinism" by WJ Seaton which is published by The Banner of Truth Trust. And, again, another excellent, and probably the best book on the subject, is Arthur W. Pink's classic work "The Sovereignty of God" also available through The Banner of Truth Trust.

Are you a Christian? Will you then give God's grace all the credit for your genuine faith in Christ?

“The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel.”

C. H. Spurgeon

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor's degree with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East."

How Did My DNA Make Me?

2010-04-03T15:43:00.011-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

The subject of DNA is very much in the headlines and news but very few have bothered to learn or understand just how this amazing molecule works and how it makes us what we are from head to toe. Haven't you ever asked yourself how you got your nose, eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and everything else? How did your DNA bring all this about? Before we answer that question we need to know just a few simple things about DNA. DNA is the abbreviated name for the genetic code and it is exactly that - a code. It is a sequential molecular string of chemical information.

DNA is located in the nucleus of our cells and is made up of various smaller molecules called nucleic acids. These various smaller molecules in our DNA are arranged in an exact sequence, just like the various letters found in a sentence. The sequence of these nucleic acids tells the cells in our body how to build our nose, eyes, hands, feet, and everything else. If the sequence for something isn't there our bodies won't build it!

The material our body used to build our nose, eyes, ears, brain, and all of our other tissues, organs and structures, and the material our body uses daily to build new cells to replace the ones that are dying comes from the food we eat. Food is not just for energy. Food is also the "lumber" and "bricks" the body uses to build new cells. When a cell multiplies it makes more cells of the same size. The only way to do this is by getting new material and that new material comes from food.

Think about it! When we were in our mother's womb we started off as a single cell not even weighing an ounce at conception. Eventually we developed arms, hands, legs, feet and organs such as brain, heart, lungs, liver, stomach, until we had a complete body. It's true that the single cell we once were multiplied into many more cells, but where did the material come from for that one cell to multiply into billions of more cells of equal size and eventually making a body weighing several pounds from something that didn't even weigh an ounce in the beginning. The material came from our mother's food.

When food is digested and broken down to its basic amino acids the various amino acids are then rearranged in a certain sequence to form cells that make up the various tissues and organs. What sequence these amino acids come together in is determined by the sequence of the molecules in DNA.

Remember, even after all our organs are formed the cells that make up our organs are continually dying and need to be replaced. Again, the material to make more cells to replace the ones that are dying comes from food.

Thus, when you feed your dog a T-bone steak your dog's DNA will make sure that steak is digested and rearranged to form the various parts of your dog, but when you eat the same steak your DNA will make sure that the steak is digested and rearranged to form human parts.

The sequence of molecules in the DNA of a chicken egg turned the food material (egg yolk and whites) of a chicken egg into a cuddly little bird!

Contrary to popular public belief about how evolution is supposed to occur, it doesn't matter what the environment is like. If the genetic information for a certain trait or characteristic is not already in the DNA (or genetic code) of a species then there is nothing in the environment that is capable of putting that information there so that the species would develop that particular trait or characteristic. In other words, it doesn't matter how much a lizard may need to fly in order to be able to survive. If the genetic information for feathers and wings are not in the DNA of a lizard then that lizard will never develop feathers and wings.

The sequence in DNA differs from individual to individual and from species to species. For an analogy, think of a library where all the books are in one language. In the library there are different books on different topics and subjects. All the books share the letters from the same alphabet, but the sequence in which these letters are arranged are different from book to book. The sequence of the letters makes the difference between a book on astronomy and a romance novel!

However, an amazing fact of biology is that every cell in your body, except for your reproductive cells, contains the complete information for the whole body. Yet not all the information in the DNA of your cells is allowed to be expressed or translated. For example, a cell from your hair also contains the complete genetic information for your eyes, brain, heart, liver, skin, and all the rest of the various organs and functions of your body (it's because of this that cloning an entire organism from any cell of the body is possible). However, in the hair cells of your body only the genetic information for your hair is allowed to be expressed, while all the other information is literally "blocked off" from being expressed or translated.

Of course, it is good for us that the cells in our bodies were designed this way; otherwise every cell in our bodies would also be everything else at the same time, which would create utter biological chaos. Truly, we may say with the Psalmist that "we are fearfully (or awesomely) and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14). Such biological precision in the cells of our bodies is still beyond the full comprehension of modern science. But the fact remains that the more we comprehend or understand the cell and how it functions, the more we must respect the wisdom behind its engineering and design.

When scientists study genes they are studying segments of the DNA molecule. The goal of the human genome project was to locate where the various genes are on the DNA. Only in this way can we begin to understand how to use genetic engineering to correct various genetically caused disorders and maladies. Faulty genes arise from mutations. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequence of the genetic code caused by radiation and other environmental forces.

Because they are accidents in the genetic code, almost all mutations are harmful. Even if a good mutation does occur for every good one there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect over time being harmful, if not lethal, to the species as a whole.

Evolutionists hope that with enough time and with enough mutations entirely new genes for new traits will be produced which will be preserved by natural selection and which will lead to the evolution of new biological kinds. There is no evidence that this can happen from accidental changes in the sequence of the genetic code, anymore than it's possible to change a romance novel into a book on astronomy by accidentally changing the sequence of the letters.

At the very best mutations can only produce new varieties of already existing traits, but not entirely new traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change that gene so that another type of human hair develops but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop!

How should we understand all the "non-coding" segments of DNA commonly known as "Junk DNA"? Evolutionists believe that the “non-coding” segments of DNA were at one time useful (that they actually coded for something) in an evolutionary past but became broken-down and, therefore, now don’t code for anything. Evolutionists believe that these “broken-down” genes will someday, by chance mutations, evolve into entirely new genes. How wrong they are. The latest science shows that "Junk DNA” isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

Even if these sections of DNA were truly useless, random mutations could never make them into useful newer genes anymore than the random energy from earthquakes can make more advanced homes and buildings by randomly rearranging the structures of already existing homes and buildings.

Almost all biological variations are the result of new combinations of already existing genes and not mutations which, as we have seen, are almost always harmful. The very few mutations that are not harmful never produce increasing genetic complexity. Scientists wouldn't expect earthquakes to produce more complex buildings and, yet, scientists who are evolutionists expect random changes (mutations) in the genetic code caused by radiation and/or chemicals in the environment to produce a human being from a fish over millions of years! There simply is no evidence that random or chance mutations in the genetic code can or will ever produce more complex genes leading to more complex biological traits.

It is true that natural selection occurs in nature, but natural selection itself does not design or produce biological variations. Natural selection is an entirely passive process in nature and can work only with biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection is simply another way of saying that if a biological variation occurs which is helpful to an animal or plant's survival then that variation will be preserved ("selected") and be passed on. Of course, nature does not do any active or conscious selecting. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. The important thing to remember is that natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value.

Furthermore, only those mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Mutations and any changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger it would not result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once-held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring.

No one has shown that DNA can come into existence by chance! It takes DNA to get DNA! In other words, there must already exist DNA to direct the formation of more DNA. Yes, it is true that the individual molecules that make up DNA have been shown to be able to come into existence by chance. But, it has never been shown that those individual molecules can come together into a sequence by chance to form the genetic code.

Recently, scientists have shown certain molecules coming into existence by chance that can mimic DNA in some respects, but these molecules are not as complex as DNA and they cannot fulfill all of the functions that only DNA and RNA can perform. Showing that these other molecules can come into existence by chance is not the same as showing DNA can come into existence by chance! In fact, as it has already been noted, no scientist anywhere has ever shown that the DNA molecule can originate by chance.

The mathematical odds of the DNA of even the simplest form of life coming into existence by chance is comparable to a monkey typing the sequence of all the letters and words in a dictionary by randomly hitting keys on a computer keyboard or typewriter.

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

Life is far too complex to have happened by chance. Therefore, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between species are due to a common Designer rather than common ancestry through evolution. The Creator simply designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life from the simplest to the most complex.

Contrary to popular belief, scientists have never created life in the laboratory. What scientists have done is genetically alter or engineer already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life. However, they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it won't be by chance so it still wouldn't help support any theory for the chance or evolutionary origin of life.

In the case involving synthetic (artificial) life, scientists don't actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter. What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing living cell and, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life. And, again, even if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design. Synthetic life is another form of genetic engineering. But God was there first. Remember that!

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt-containing microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

"We think there's about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars", says (evolutionist) Kenneth Nealson. "You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth" [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12]. Furthermore, MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown (a creationist) in his book In The Beginning points out that during the great Genesis flood, as recorded in the Bible, the fountains of the deep that were let loose could have easily spewed out meteors and meteorites into space that very well may have contained micro-organisms such as bacteria.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The question is how did life come about when there was no directing mechanism in Nature. An excellent article to read by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish is "A Few Reasons An Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible" (http://icr.org/article/3140/).

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is comparable to the probability of a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of people could come from the same human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair ( i.e. blond, brunette, brown, red) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the varieties and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but Adam and Eve, did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color (i.e. brown, green, and blue), but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color (i.e. brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring. Our bodies do not express every possible variation of the genes that we carry. One man having black hair may be carrying unexpressed genes for blond hair. Another man having black hair may not be carrying any unexpressed genes for different color hair. There are so many possibilities with genes and their combinations.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

What we believe about our origins influences and affects our attitude and philosophy toward life and how we view ourselves (our worth) and how we view others (their worth). This is no small issue!

Yes, natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

Just because science can explain how life and the universe work doesn't mean there is no ultimate Designer. Would it be rational to believe that there is no designer behind airplanes because science can explain how airplanes work?

We know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. It requires a beginning. But, we also know from science that natural laws could not have brought the universe into being from nothing. The beginning of the universe, therefore, points to a supernatural origin!

Belief in neither evolution nor creation is necessary to the actual study of science itself. One can study and understand how the human body works and become a first class surgeon regardless of whether he or she believes the human body is the result of the chance forces of Nature or of a Supreme Designer.

Science cannot prove that we are here by chance (evolution) or by design (creation). However, the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other. If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools, which receive funding from taxpayers, who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state. As a religion and science writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at my website http://www.religionscience.com for a more in-depth study of the issue of origins and intelligent design.

An excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) in San Diego, California. Also, the reader may find answers to many difficult questions concerning the Bible (including questions on creation and evolution, Noah's Ark, how dinosaurs fit into the Bible, etc.) at http://www.ChristianAnswers.net.

MIT scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues (i.e. fossils, "transitional" links, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc.) at greater depth on his website at http://www.creationscience.com.

The New Testament Response To Homosexuals

2010-04-03T15:43:00.006-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

There is much to be said concerning certain Christian attitudes towards homosexuals. Some who claim to be Christian have taken a militant approach to homosexuals and used the Bible to justify persecuting them and denying them of all rights. Whether their case is supported by the Bible shall be examined.

First, however, it is important to point out that homosexuals need to respect the right of heterosexuals, particularly Christian heterosexuals, to reject homosexuality as sin, as biologically abnormal, and as biblically and morally wrong. On the other hand, it is also important that homosexuals not be persecuted by Christians or be denied certain basic civil rights and liberties.

What is unfortunate is that many Christians believe in applying Old Testament justice to people today who commit particular sins. In the New Testament Christ changed the treatment towards such people. Was Christ then implying that the Old Testament system of justice was wrong? Absolutely not! God's purpose in the Old Testament was to emphasize His justice through the uniquely theocratic relationship that He had with the nation of Israel at the time. Why did God do this? One reason for why God so emphasized His justice in Old Testament times is precisely so that we can appreciate more His undeserving mercy in our present New Testament times. This is why Christ forgave and released the woman caught in committing adultery. According to Old Testament standards this woman should have received the death penalty.

Ultimately, God's justice against sin was finally and fully satisfied in the death and atoning work of His Son Jesus Christ when He died for our sins on the Cross, and through genuine repentance and faith in the resurrected Christ we imperfect humans (who will always have some sin) are freely forgiven and receive the promise of eternal life.

Even if there is a biological basis for some cases of homosexuality it still would not make homosexuality correct or morally acceptable any more than a biological basis or tendency in some individuals towards other deviant behavior would make those acts correct or morally acceptable. Ultimately, both sides must respect the basic civil and constitutional rights of the other, and this includes the right of the majority (heterosexuals) to determine public policy concerning issues such as marriage or civil unions.

Rational Christian Answer To Ayn Rand

2010-04-03T15:42:00.001-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

As a Christian I wish to respond to Ayn Rand's self-centered philosophy and her so-called arguments, which she claims are rational, against Christian altruism. I am thoroughly familiar with Ayn Rand's philosophy, but she misunderstands and misapplies certain Christian teachings. We shall examine these and other points in this article. No doubt, Ayn Rand would be totally correct in her "Objectivist" philosophy if Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory were, indeed, scientifically valid and true.

The actual and objective scientific evidence, however, shows that there are natural limits to evolution in nature and that we are not here by chance or by macro-evolutionary processes. Natural selection in nature is not a creative force as many think. Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are produced and that have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations are naturally possible.

Genetic information, like any other information, doesn't happen by chance. Therefore, it's far more logical and rational to believe that the genetic similarities between all forms of life are because of a common Designer or Genetic Engineer (God) Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life.

Micro-evolution, or variations within a biological kind such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, and cows, is science but not macro-evolution. Macro-evolution, variations across kinds, is not science but faith.

The genes exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution, and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits.

Another problem for macro-evolution is the issue of survival of the fittest. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset.

No one has shown that DNA can come into existence by chance! It takes DNA to get DNA! In other words, there must already exist DNA in nature to direct the formation of more DNA.

The mathematical odds of even the simplest DNA molecule coming into existence by chance is comparable to a monkey typing the sequence of all the letters and words in a dictionary by randomly hitting keys on a computer keyboard.

What about "Junk DNA?" The latest science shows that "Junk DNA” isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

Regarding protein molecules, it is has been shown that some individual amino acid molecules making-up proteins can come into existence by chance. But, it has never been shown that the various individual amino acid molecules can come together into a precise sequence by chance to form protein molecules.

Besides all this, none of these molecules can exist for long outside of an already complete and living cell! In other words, the cell could not have gradually evolved. (Please read author's essay The Natural Limits of Evolution at his website, www.religionscience.com, for a comprehensive and in-depth scientific analysis and discussion of this issue).

There is a God to Whom Ayn Rand and all of us must give an account. God is not being egotistical. Truth demands that God be the center of our lives.

Ayn Rand misunderstands the concept of Christian altruism and the proper context in which Christian altruism is to be applied. Christian altruism does not mean that we should give to others unconditionally in all circumstances because that would not be for the true benefit of others. Christian love seeks what is for the true benefit of others, not whatever they desire or want. For example, the Bible teaches that a person who is not willing to work should not eat. Therefore, feeding such a person is wrong since it would only be helping to increase the selfishness of such a person.

There is a difference between selfness and selfishness. The first involves proper Biblical love and care for oneself as God intends. The latter is based on ego and pride. Christianity is not against legitimate self-interest. We are created in God's image so, of course, God would want us to love ourselves as well as to love others.

Ayn Rand rightly claims that "A" cannot be "non A" but she misapplies this principle in her critique of Christianity. For example, when Christ said that "the first shall be last and the last shall be first" there is no true contradiction (i.e. "A" being "non A"), as Ayn Rand claims, because the both cases in which the words "first" and "last" are used within the context of the passage have different applications and reasons for usage. Jesus was simply saying that in this world a person is considered "first" or "last" for different reasons than why a person is considered "first" or "last" in God's kingdom. Again, there is no real contradiction (i.e. there is no "A" equated with "non A").

According to Christian teaching, the individual (the "self") is not an end to itself but rather the "self" is a means to an end - that end being to live for God and to please Him and to do His will. Part of living for God is to do good for ourselves as well as for others because we belong to God and are owned by Him.

Christianity is not against the enjoyment of material things; it is against the worship of material things. God alone is worthy of worship! The Bible does not teach that money itself is the root of all evil but rather the Bible teaches that it is "the love of money which is the root of all evil."

God is glorified when His creatures enjoy the provisions, bounty, and wealth that He provides, but if it is God's will and purpose in a particular case for an individual to give up all that he has and to give it to the poor then it is only right that the individual do so. After all, everything belongs to God, even the wealth a person gains in this life for nothing would be possible without God's power and undeserving grace.

Contrary to popular belief, Jesus was not against self-defense in all cases. "Turning the other cheek" simply means that Christians should not retaliate against personal insults by returning insults. "Slapping another's cheek" in Jewish culture was considered a figure of speech for throwing verbal insult at someone. Jesus, in fact, allowed His disciples to carry swords for self-defense. This is why Peter pulled out a sword to protect Jesus at the time of His arrest. However, Jesus told Peter to put away the sword because it was the Father's will at that time for Christ to be delivered to suffering and death in order to pay for the sins of the world.

There is nothing wrong with capitalism or making a profit. What is evil is when profits are made without any sense of obligation and duty to God and His commandments. It is God Who enables the capitalist to make money and it is God who requires the capitalist to have due and proper concern for his fellowman's health and welfare. Profits made at the expense of God's commandments are an abomination to the Creator and society. CEOs take notice! My fellow conservatives and Republicans take notice!

The above are just some of the Christian arguments refuting Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Intelligent Design On Another Planet?

2010-04-03T15:40:00.001-04:00

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Imagine finding a planet where robots are programmed so that they can make other robots just like themselves from raw materials.

Now, imagine an alien scientist visitor coming to the planet and, after many years of studying these robots, the alien scientist visitor comes to the conclusion that since science can explain how these robots work, operate, function, and reproduce there's no reason to believe that there was an ultimate intelligent designer behind them.

The analogy above certainly is not perfect but it is sufficient to reveal the fallacious thinking of those who attack intelligent design behind life and the universe.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and complex biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The question is how could life or the cell come into existence naturally when there was no directing mechanism in nature.

Intelligent Design theory does not oppose natural laws but simply states that mere undirected natural laws can never account for the high complexity found in life and the universe.

Chance physical processes can produce some level of order but it is not rational to believe that the highest levels of order in life and the universe are by chance. For example, some amino acids have been shown to be able to come into existence by chance but not more complex molecules or structures such as proteins which require that the various amino acids be in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. If they're not in the right sequence the protein molecules will not function. A single cell alone has millions of protein molecules!

There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already existing sequence of molecules in our genetic code. Without being in a proper sequence protein molecules will not function.

The sequence of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) determines the sequence of molecules in proteins. Furthermore, without DNA there cannot be RNA, and without RNA there cannot be DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there cannot be proteins, and without proteins there cannot be DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! None of these molecules can "survive" or replicate outside of a complete and living cell. This simply means that DNA ,RNA , and proteins could never have gradually evolved waiting supposedly through hundreds of millions of years to become a complete cell.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

In nature there are what scientists call right-handed and left-handed amino acids. However, life requires that all proteins be left-handed. So, not only do millions of amino acids have to be in the correct sequence, they also all have to be left-handed. If a right-handed amino acid gets mixed in then the protein molecules won't function. There won't be any life!

Similarly, the nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be in a precise sequence. The sugar molecules that make-up the various nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must all be right-handed. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then nothing will work.

The best little article ever written refuting the origin of life by chance is "A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible" by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish. Dr. Gish presents "simple" but profound scientific barriers to evolution of life which aren't mentioned or covered in Johnny's high school biology textbook or in college textbooks for that matter. This article is truly great! Dr. Gish's article may be accessed for reading at: http://icr.org/article/3140/ where also links to other articles may be found.

Trust me, Dawkins and all the evolutionists put together can't hold a candle to the scientific genius of Dr. Gish. Just read one of Dr. Gish's books and you'll see why. Dr. Gish has successfully debated hundreds of evolution scientists in secular colleges and universities across the nation over the past two decades, and students have consistently voted him the winner in all of those debates. Don't try looking for this news in the main stream media. You won't find it there anymore than you'll find a half-evolved chipmunk running around in your backyard!

Think about it! If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

Contrary to popular belief, scientists have never created life in the laboratory. What scientists have done is genetically alter or engineer already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life. However, they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it won't be by chance so it still wouldn't help support any argument for evolution.

Even in the recent case, as reported in the news, involving the creation of what is called synthetic (or artificial) life, scientists don't actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter. What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing living cell and, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life. And, again, even if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design. Synthetic life is another form of genetic engineering. But God was there first. Remember that!

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species is due to a common Designer rather than common evolutionary ancestry. It is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life.

What about natural selection? Natural selection only comes into operation once there is life. Also, natural selection is not a creative force. It is a passive force in Nature. Natural selection has no ability to design or generate new genes or new biological traits.

Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are produced and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations can be naturally produced. What biological variations are naturally possible? When a biological change or variation occurs within a species and this new variation (such as a change in skin color, etc.) helps that species to survive in its environment then that variation will be preserved ("selected") and be passed on to offspring. That is called "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest". But, neither "natural selection" nor "survival of the fittest" has anything to do with producing biological traits and variations.

The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any active or conscious selecting. It is an entirely passive process. Darwin did not realize what produced biological variations. Darwin simply assumed that any kind of biological change or variation was possible in life. However, we now know that biological traits and variations are determined by the genetic code.

Natural selection works with evolution but it is not evolution itself. Again, since natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible, the real question to be asking is what kind of biological variations are naturally possible. How much biological variation (or how much evolution) is naturally possible in Nature?

The evidence from science shows that only microevolution (variations within a biological "kind" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is possible but not macroevolution (variations across biological "kinds", especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones). The only evolution that occurs in Nature and which can be studied in Nature is microevolution (or horizontal evolution) but not macroevolution (or vertical evolution). There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that genetic mutations (random changes in the genetic code) caused by various environmental forces such as radiation have any capability to increase the genetic complexity of a species so that macroevolution from earthworm to man would be possible.

It is precisely because they are accidents in the genetic code that almost all true mutations are harmful. Even if a good one occurred for every good one there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect being disastrous for the species as a whole. Most biological variations in species are due to new combinations of already existing genes and not because of mutations which are rare in Nature. A genetic engineer Nature is not!

What about “Junk DNA”? The latest science shows that "Junk DNA” isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

Another reason for why macroevolution is not possible in Nature is because a half-evolved and useless organ waiting millions of years to be completed by random mutations would be a liability and hindrance to a species - not exactly a prime candidate for natural selection. In fact, how could species have survived over, supposedly, millions of years while their vital (or necessary) organs were still in the process of evolving!

How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt containing microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

We know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. It requires a beginning. But, we also know from science that natural laws could not have brought the universe into being from nothing. The beginning of the universe, therefore, points to a supernatural origin!

Even the scientific followers of Prigogine, the father of Chaos theory, have admitted that only a very minimal level of order will ever be possible as a result of spontaneous or chance processes.

Those advocating the teaching of intelligent design are not demanding that Darwinian theory no longer be taught. Rather, the advocates of intelligent design want the merits of both theories taught side by side when the issue of origins is covered in science classes and textbooks. This is only fair.

Science cannot prove how life originated since no human observed the origin of life by either chance or design. Observation and detection by the human senses, either directly or indirectly through scientific instruments, is the basis of science and for establishing proof.

The issue is which position has better scientific support. Both sides should have the opportunity to present their case.

What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but, again, mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

All of this simply means that real science supports faith in God. Science cannot prove that we are here by chance (evolution) or by design (creation). However, the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other.

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue.

Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state.

There is, of course, much more to be said on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues ( i.e. fossils, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc.) at greater depth on his website at http://www.creationscience.com.

Another excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) in San Diego, California.